Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

Why do you address so many of your postings to "Martin and William"? is this preaching to the choir? I don't feel left out. I sometimes wonder why I bother reading or replying to this stuff.

It seems improbable that Lange and Vannatter would cover up for MF, and vice versa (I guess) and then slam each other in their respective books (one by MF the other book by the other two). I would think anyone engaged in an illegal plot would be afraid of offending the others in on the plot.

One of the points I made on thread about the blue wall of silence is that anyone depending on the blue wall of silence would be afraid of death bed confessions and of people getting drunk and talking. The blue wall of silence couldn't prevent that. If you add that problem to the possibility of someone blowing the whistle and selling the story to the press, the blue wall of silence protecting Fuhrman, Lange, and Vannatter would be pretty precarious.

Human nature being what it is I don't think it's possible that no one would have let the cat out of the bag by now. The lure of financial gain, loss of fear of retribution or just not being able to keep a secret...something would have come out by now. If nothing else, a family member or confidant of the conspirator would have told someone who told someone who told someone... Look at Mike Gilbert and his book about how he advised and helped OJ Simpson get away with the crime...he just couldn't stay silent.

[bobaugust]

The evidence in this case is that MF was asked about seeing a glove (singular) and answered to seeing more than one (plural). You may believe MF, who was later convicted of perjury, and you can imagine he was telling the truth but, I choose to follow the lead of the sophisticated jury and not consider him.

The evidence is that every witness including Mark Fuhrman testified to seeing one glove and a knit hat under the plant leaves at Bundy. The evidence is that in the preliminary hearing when Mark Fuhrman was asked about where he was when he saw the glove he told where he was when he saw the glove and the knit hat. That was what the word “them” meant. You can fantasize that the word “them” meant two gloves, or anything else you want to imagine but the facts are the facts and the evidence in this case is that there was only one glove and a knit hat under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet and no defense attorney in this case ever claimed differently.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

The pictures submitted in the civil trial proof your detectives are lying.

Q. Okay. Now, why did you go that way?
A. Because I had to go inside the house.
Q. Okay. Now, three detectives have testified before this jury that
you went right in -- there's a back door right here?
A. Yeah, there's a door right here.
Q. They testified that you had your keys out and you had to open up
a lock with the keys and you went in that way. Did you do that
night?
A. No. It's impossible.
MR. PETROCELLI: Object to the mischaracterization of the testimony.
MR. LEONARD: They testified --
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. PETROCELLI: I think he misstated the details of their testimony.

THE COURT: Okay. Strike that. And ask the question as to what she
did.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you go in the back door?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You can resume your seat.
MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, these are exhibits and photos I've
not seen before, not on the joint trial statement, but I have no
objection.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
MR. BAKER: Half of your exhibits are not on the joint trial
statement
(indicating to photographs shown to him by Mr. Leonard).
MR. LEONARD: I'll show you what I'll mark next in order.
THE CLERK: 2318.
(The instrument herein described as a photo was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2318.)
MR. LEONARD: And 2319.
(The instrument herein described as a photo was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2319.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I ask you to take a look at those two
photographs, Ms. Simpson. I'm going to ask you if they accurately
depict the back door that we've just been talking about as it
existed on June 12 -- excuse me -- the morning of June 13, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a lock on that door --
A. No.
Q. -- that you can open with a key from the outside?
A. No, there's not.
Q. Is there an alarm and was there on June 13, 1994?
A. No.
Q. Is there a key pad to activate the alarm there?
A. No.
Q. Was there on the morning of June 13, 1994?
A. No.
Q. Now, when you -- after you walked all the way around with the
detectives, did you enter the house?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: This is depicting 22 -- what's the second one?
THE CLERK: 2319.
MR. LEONARD: 2319.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Is that correct, Ms. Simpson?
A. Yes.
(Exhibit 2319 is displayed on Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: If we could show 2318.
MR. BAKER: Why don't you zoom in on the door handle.
(Elmo is adjusted to zoom in on door handle.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Again, that was the handle that was on that door
on the morning of June 13, 1994?
A. Correct.
Q. I just want to show -- no, that's fine, we'll get it back
(indicating to exhibit in the witness' possession). Now, what was
the purpose of going into the house?
A. I was going into the house to go to get in touch with somebody
that could find out where my dad was.


Also, MF's testimony about getting into the house does not match Kato's. MF has them walking by themselves, Kato has them playing follow the leader with Arnelle leading the way.

And you still haven't provided any evidence or reason why Arnelle would lie about what door to enter?

Evidently you didn’t understand the testimony I posted. Kaelin said he saw Arnelle let the detectives into the house through the back door. After Arnelle and the detectives were in the house Kaelin and Fuhrman followed them in.

All five witnesses, four of whom had never been in Simpson’s house before described the rooms they entered after going through the back door of the house. If you look at the diagram I posted a link to you would see that for yourself. If Arnelle Simpson had taken the detectives around the house to the front door and turned the alarm off they would have testified to that fact. There was no reason for them to lie about this seemingly minor detail since it didn’t help the case against Simpson to say they went in through the back door. And Kato certainly had no reason to lie about this since at that time he was a Simpson supporter.

You are mistaken, the pictures do not prove anything except that the detectives assumed Arnelle had unlocked the back door since she had keys with her when in fact she simply opened it. Because that door could only be locked or unlocked from the inside and because there was no alarm key pad near that door the fact that no alarm went off when Arnelle and the detectives entered the house through that door means someone had previously turned the alarm off sometime between 11:40 pm when Kaelin turned the house alarm on and 5:00 am when the police arrived at Rockingham.

Someone who had a key to Simpson’s house, someone who knew the house alarm code, someone who had access to Arnelle Simpson’s laundry basket and Arnelle’s laundry, someone who washed Arnelle’s clothing, someone who washed a dark colored sweat suit, someone who was at Rockingham before the police arrived the morning after the murders.

Who was that someone? Arnelle Simpson.

Arnelle Simpson lied to cover up the mistake she made after helping her father by washing her father’s sweat suit before the police arrived the morning after the murders thereby disposing of blood evidence. In her haste to get back to her room and go back to sleep she left the house by unlocking and exiting the rear door that was nearer to her room instead of going back through the house to the front door to turn the alarm back on and then walk all the way around the house to get back to her room.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

gi
I remember a detectives testifying that Furhman either walked out the front of bundy and around the block to the alley or out the back gate to the alley and that this was the only time he was not seen for 5-10 minutes.
if you remember this let me know who the detective was otherwise i will have to read all their testimony to try to find it. also i cannot remember where furhman parked his car when he arrived at bundy.

Martin,

MF testified that after he dropped Kato off, he went through the front door. I believe it was JC who said or asked why did it take MF 15 minutes to find the glove.

[tv]

Evidently you didn’t understand the testimony I posted. Kaelin said he saw Arnelle let the detectives into the house through the back door. After Arnelle and the detectives were in the house Kaelin and Fuhrman followed them in.

All five witnesses, four of whom had never been in Simpson’s house before described the rooms they entered after going through the back door of the house. If you look at the diagram I posted a link to you would see that for yourself. If Arnelle Simpson had taken the detectives around the house to the front door and turned the alarm off they would have testified to that fact. There was no reason for them to lie about this seemingly minor detail since it didn’t help the case against Simpson to say they went in through the back door. And Kato certainly had no reason to lie about this since at that time he was a Simpson supporter.

You are mistaken, the pictures do not prove anything except that the detectives assumed Arnelle had unlocked the back door since she had keys with her when in fact she simply opened it. Because that door could only be locked or unlocked from the inside and because there was no alarm key pad near that door the fact that no alarm went off when Arnelle and the detectives entered the house through that door means someone had previously turned the alarm off sometime between 11:40 pm when Kaelin turned the house alarm on and 5:00 am when the police arrived at Rockingham.

Someone who had a key to Simpson’s house, someone who knew the house alarm code, someone who had access to Arnelle Simpson’s laundry basket and Arnelle’s laundry, someone who washed Arnelle’s clothing, someone who washed a dark colored sweat suit, someone who was at Rockingham before the police arrived the morning after the murders.

Who was that someone? Arnelle Simpson.

Arnelle Simpson lied to cover up the mistake she made after helping her father by washing her father’s sweat suit before the police arrived the morning after the murders thereby disposing of blood evidence. In her haste to get back to her room and go back to sleep she left the house by unlocking and exiting the rear door that was nearer to her room instead of going back through the house to the front door to turn the alarm back on and then walk all the way around the house to get back to her room.

bobaugust

Perfect. Thank you, bobaugust. :)

[fgump2]

Many cops in the department knew fyrhman has a active case for planting a knife on a suspect. Furhman painted a nazi symble on a cops locker because he was married to a jew.Cops had heard him talk about Nicoles brest and knew he had a special interest in nicole and oj.Police watch has five casses against furhman for abuse of minorties. The DA. clarke and Darden knew furhman had racial issues.

No cop came forward to their superiors to report furhman and the DAS did not report what they new to GG. The DA put him on ther stand and other detectives did what they could to protect him in their testimony.

That looks like a blue wall of silence to me.
all my opinion. :cool:

One of the problems in any conspiricy is getting the people to keep a secret. I have heard about cases in which an illegal operation fell apart because people couldn't keep a secret. Remember the scandal involving one of Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan? Nancy was the victim. One of the criminals couldn't keep a secret. I have heard of cops keeping secrets, but it has involved things a lot less interesting than framing a celebrity. In my own personal life I have seen people having a hard time keeping a secret even when there were motives. Sometimes I have been the one having problems keeping a secret.

In the cases I have heard about where cops or others kept an illegal secert for a while the secret wasn't very interesting. Also the culprits could sometimes talk about it by changing a few details to protect the guilty. PRetty hard to do when framing a celebrity.

[GreenIce]

Evidently you didn’t understand the testimony I posted. Kaelin said he saw Arnelle let the detectives into the house through the back door. After Arnelle and the detectives were in the house Kaelin and Fuhrman followed them in.

All five witnesses, four of whom had never been in Simpson’s house before described the rooms they entered after going through the back door of the house. If you look at the diagram I posted a link to you would see that for yourself. If Arnelle Simpson had taken the detectives around the house to the front door and turned the alarm off they would have testified to that fact. There was no reason for them to lie about this seemingly minor detail since it didn’t help the case against Simpson to say they went in through the back door. And Kato certainly had no reason to lie about this since at that time he was a Simpson supporter.

You are mistaken, the pictures do not prove anything except that the detectives assumed Arnelle had unlocked the back door since she had keys with her when in fact she simply opened it. Because that door could only be locked or unlocked from the inside and because there was no alarm key pad near that door the fact that no alarm went off when Arnelle and the detectives entered the house through that door means someone had previously turned the alarm off sometime between 11:40 pm when Kaelin turned the house alarm on and 5:00 am when the police arrived at Rockingham.

Someone who had a key to Simpson’s house, someone who knew the house alarm code, someone who had access to Arnelle Simpson’s laundry basket and Arnelle’s laundry, someone who washed Arnelle’s clothing, someone who washed a dark colored sweat suit, someone who was at Rockingham before the police arrived the morning after the murders.

Who was that someone? Arnelle Simpson.

Arnelle Simpson lied to cover up the mistake she made after helping her father by washing her father’s sweat suit before the police arrived the morning after the murders thereby disposing of blood evidence. In her haste to get back to her room and go back to sleep she left the house by unlocking and exiting the rear door that was nearer to her room instead of going back through the house to the front door to turn the alarm back on and then walk all the way around the house to get back to her room.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Did you read all of Arnelle's testimony? She did not have to enter the main using an "outside" door. I believe the only way to enter the back of the house is through the guest rooms in the back.

You have no evidence to support that Simpson ever contacted Arnelle in the early morning to do any thing. There is no proof that Arnelle would even cover for her father. It is obvious that Arnelle was totally unprepared for the detectives visit that morning---had she been involved, she would have been prepared for them.

Never did Clark challenge her on what door she entered. She danced around it and kept dancing even when Arnelle told her it was impossible to enter through the doors the detectives were claiming to have entered.

During the criminal trial, did Clark ever ask any of the detectives if they saw her punch in the alarm? And even if they did, what evidence do you have that they were telling the truth?

The second search warrant proves that they did not know if there was ever a sweat suit, only if they found one, they wanted to collect it. MC has the sweats in the hamper and MF has them in a washing machine. However, no one in the trial ever testified to the contents of the washing machine and no one testified that they took the contents out of the washing machine and determined that they were in fact sweats.

We also know that Doug Deedrick never compared the fibers that were found to a sweat suit. In fact he only testifed he believed they came from the same piece of cloth.

You do not have any evidence to support that Arnelle is lying and the detectives are telling the truth. Arnelle had no reason to lie because she had nothing to hide----however, that can't be said of the detectives.

And Marcia Clark in the prelim hearing did say that Arnelle let them in the front door.

[GreenIce]

One thing I'd like to know about the case of MF planting a knife. Was that ever proved, and if so, why didn't he go to jail? It seems odd that he was punished more for the perjury charge than for planting a knife.

fgump2,

The second trial for this incident was suppose to happen during the Simpson trial. The city of LA settled with $100,000.00 pay out to a career petty criminal rather the have MF involved in another trial where his actions were questioned and he was accused of planting evidence and using the n-word.

[GreenIce]

I don't think the behavior of the LAPD is above criticism. I think the blue wall does exist, but it isn't very reliable. Many people think, or at least say, that he blue wall is so reliable that a cop can break rules and count on getting away with it. For example, if Fuhrman had found a 2nd glove at the original crime scene, the other cops would have ignored it because of the blue wall of silence.
I doubt this. Any LAPD employee who realized that evidence was being tampered to incriminate Mr. Simpson, or that there was any indication of framing OJS would have two motives for speaking out to their superiors and the press: (1) their conscience (2) to make money selling a story to the press. I haven't read about the ramparts case, but I doubt that the financial motive for blowing the whistle existed in the ramparts case. In any big organization there are always people short on money - so any copy short on money would be tempted to blow the whistel and sell a story to the press.

I have raised the question about the complication that one of the first cops to Bundy was an African American - Donald Thompson. If Fuhrman was as racist as many claim, he would have been worried that Thompson would might see what he was doing and blow a whistle. Think of the humiliation Fuhrman (if he was as racist as some say) would have felt about being nailed by a black man.

The answer some people have given - is that Thompson wouldn't have done that because of the blue wall of silence.
To believe that we have to think that Fuhrman hated all black people, but trusted Thompson to follow the blue wall of silence. Also Fuhrman would have had no way of knowing how many of the other cops were jewish. There were probably a lot of jewish cops working for the LAPD - and Jewish and black criminologists. The two most important police criminologists on the case were a chinise amaerican man and a hispanic woman. If Fuhrman was as racist as some say, he would have felt quite uncomfortable about that.

fgump2,

In July 1994, MF disobeyed a direct order not to talk LHM. He told her that he was the most important witness and that if he went down, the glove went down and there goes the case and that MC knew this.

What does that tell you? That the glove was already being questioned by the DA's and by the LAPD. It is obvious that Vanatter did everything he could to take the focus off of MF and to down play his role in the case.

Also, it has been posted many times that MF had other motives to plant the glove and that his racism may not have even entered into this.

Also, on the tapes, MF describes real cops and what they do or don't do, what they see or don't see and as long as everybody keeps their mouth shut, then there are no worries.

MF has demonstrated through out his career that he has no respect for authority and I have come to believe that it doesn't matter gender or race. He knew who he was aligned with and he knew he was protected.

[William Anthony]

accused is not the same as convicted.

That's what I and others have been telling you and others but you and others keep saying guilty.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I don't think the behavior of the LAPD is above criticism. I think the blue wall does exist, but it isn't very reliable. Many people think, or at least say, that he blue wall is so reliable that a cop can break rules and count on getting away with it. For example, if Fuhrman had found a 2nd glove at the original crime scene, the other cops would have ignored it because of the blue wall of silence.
I doubt this. Any LAPD employee who realized that evidence was being tampered to incriminate Mr. Simpson, or that there was any indication of framing OJS would have two motives for speaking out to their superiors and the press: (1) their conscience (2) to make money selling a story to the press. I haven't read about the ramparts case, but I doubt that the financial motive for blowing the whistle existed in the ramparts case. In any big organization there are always people short on money - so any copy short on money would be tempted to blow the whistel and sell a story to the press.

I have raised the question about the complication that one of the first cops to Bundy was an African American - Donald Thompson. If Fuhrman was as racist as many claim, he would have been worried that Thompson would might see what he was doing and blow a whistle. Think of the humiliation Fuhrman (if he was as racist as some say) would have felt about being nailed by a black man.

The answer some people have given - is that Thompson wouldn't have done that because of the blue wall of silence.
To believe that we have to think that Fuhrman hated all black people, but trusted Thompson to follow the blue wall of silence. Also Fuhrman would have had no way of knowing how many of the other cops were jewish. There were probably a lot of jewish cops working for the LAPD - and Jewish and black criminologists. The two most important police criminologists on the case were a chinise amaerican man and a hispanic woman. If Fuhrman was as racist as some say, he would have felt quite uncomfortable about that.

Was Donald Thompson called to testify?

[William Anthony]

One thing I'd like to know about the case of MF planting a knife. Was that ever proved, and if so, why didn't he go to jail? It seems odd that he was punished more for the perjury charge than for planting a knife.

Have you heard of settling a case?

[William Anthony]

The story that many conspiricy theory people give is that the culprits planted blood in the bronco weeks or months after the crime. This would indicate more than one or two people involved.
I think some have indicated that planting occurred after the start of the trial, more than 6 months later. Also the sock was supposedly siting around with no blood on it for months before someone decided to plant blood on it. Does this mean the planter had records of what tests had been done? How would they have gotten the proper people to do more testing?

For this planting to have occurred months after the trial, the plotters would have had to have access to blood, and also be able to get the proper authorities to do more testing late in the game.

The fact that the blood from Nicole on the sock was less degraded than her reference sample is another complication.

No complication at all, once one realizes EDTA can be diluted.

[William Anthony]

I'd like to see a link to the testimony that Fuhrman painted a swastika on a fellow officer's locker and also to the cases that 'police watch' had against Det. Fuhrman and their outcomes. I hope that no one responds with the usual innuendos of racism or romantic interest in Mark Fuhrman just because I'm requesting validation for these claims.

Read the transcripts to include the side bars as Martin so smartly instructed us, much can be learned from reading the side bars.

[William Anthony]

The evidence is that every witness including Mark Fuhrman testified to seeing one glove and a knit hat under the plant leaves at Bundy. The evidence is that in the preliminary hearing when Mark Fuhrman was asked about where he was when he saw the glove he told where he was when he saw the glove and the knit hat. That was what the word “them” meant. You can fantasize that the word “them” meant two gloves, or anything else you want to imagine but the facts are the facts and the evidence in this case is that there was only one glove and a knit hat under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet and no defense attorney in this case ever claimed differently.

bobaugust

The evidence in this case is that MF was asked about seeing a glove (singular) and answered to seeing more than one (plural). You may believe MF, who was later convicted of perjury, and you can imagine he was telling the truth but, I choose to follow the lead of the sophisticated jury and not consider him.

I suggest that you reread the magnificent one's closing.

[William Anthony]

Evidently you didn’t understand the testimony I posted. Kaelin said he saw Arnelle let the detectives into the house through the back door. After Arnelle and the detectives were in the house Kaelin and Fuhrman followed them in.

All five witnesses, four of whom had never been in Simpson’s house before described the rooms they entered after going through the back door of the house. If you look at the diagram I posted a link to you would see that for yourself. If Arnelle Simpson had taken the detectives around the house to the front door and turned the alarm off they would have testified to that fact. There was no reason for them to lie about this seemingly minor detail since it didn’t help the case against Simpson to say they went in through the back door. And Kato certainly had no reason to lie about this since at that time he was a Simpson supporter.

You are mistaken, the pictures do not prove anything except that the detectives assumed Arnelle had unlocked the back door since she had keys with her when in fact she simply opened it. Because that door could only be locked or unlocked from the inside and because there was no alarm key pad near that door the fact that no alarm went off when Arnelle and the detectives entered the house through that door means someone had previously turned the alarm off sometime between 11:40 pm when Kaelin turned the house alarm on and 5:00 am when the police arrived at Rockingham.

Someone who had a key to Simpson’s house, someone who knew the house alarm code, someone who had access to Arnelle Simpson’s laundry basket and Arnelle’s laundry, someone who washed Arnelle’s clothing, someone who washed a dark colored sweat suit, someone who was at Rockingham before the police arrived the morning after the murders.

Who was that someone? Arnelle Simpson.

Arnelle Simpson lied to cover up the mistake she made after helping her father by washing her father’s sweat suit before the police arrived the morning after the murders thereby disposing of blood evidence. In her haste to get back to her room and go back to sleep she left the house by unlocking and exiting the rear door that was nearer to her room instead of going back through the house to the front door to turn the alarm back on and then walk all the way around the house to get back to her room.

bobaugust

May the fleas of a thousand camels embed in your armpits! How dare you call the beautiful Ms. Arnelle a liar. Seriously, according to the new rules, posters are required to state in their opinion and then state the reasons why they feel the way they do. In stating the reasons, I believe it would require something more concrete than an accusation such as this, "In her haste to get back to her room and go back to sleep she left the house by unlocking and exiting the rear door that was nearer to her room instead of going back through the house to the front door to turn the alarm back on and then walk all the way around the house to get back to her room. " If you can't point to some evidence given in the trial to support the inference you drew, other than the alarm was not set, it would be greatly appreciated, because, although I have not, I could speculate/invent evidence that Kato forgot to set the alarm as instructed.

[William Anthony]

Perfect. Thank you, bobaugust. :)

A perfect bit of speculation.:);):cool:

[GreenIce]

Was Donald Thompson called to testify?

William,

The defense called him to testify. I think it was only about his handcuffing Simpson when he arrived at Rockingham.

[William Anthony]

William,

The defense called him to testify. I think it was only about his handcuffing Simpson when he arrived at Rockingham.

GreenIce,

I think you may be right my computer isn't allowing me to get to the transcripts at this time and I should have said was he called by the prosecution and asked how many gloves he saw at Bundy. Thanks.

[martin II]

One of the problems in any conspiricy is getting the people to keep a secret. I have heard about cases in which an illegal operation fell apart because people couldn't keep a secret. Remember the scandal involving one of Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan? Nancy was the victim. One of the criminals couldn't keep a secret. I have heard of cops keeping secrets, but it has involved things a lot less interesting than framing a celebrity. In my own personal life I have seen people having a hard time keeping a secret even when there were motives. Sometimes I have been the one having problems keeping a secret.

In the cases I have heard about where cops or others kept an illegal secert for a while the secret wasn't very interesting. Also the culprits could sometimes talk about it by changing a few details to protect the guilty. PRetty hard to do when framing a celebrity.

There are many cases where le partners lied against defendants that causedthem to be wrongly convicted and sent to jail only to br released by DNA

But i don't think any amount of instances of blue wall of silence will help you to admit its existance. You refuse to read info on the subject.

[martin II]

Rampart

70 officers remained silent.
lapd criminals.This too place at the time of the oj case

The Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) anti-gang program initiated under the direction of LAPD Chief Daryl F. Gates in the late 1970s had encountered some success in the Rampart Division. However, between 1998-2000, graphic allegations emerged of extreme police misconduct among Rampart's CRASH squad. This misconduct involved several officers, most notably Rafael Perez. Perez was suspected to be involved in a bank robbery committed by another Rampart officer, David Mack; he also stole six pounds of cocaine from an LAPD evidence locker, which led to his arrest.[2] His most egregious act involved the shooting--and framing--of unarmed gangmember Javier Ovando. Perez originally claimed that Ovando had opened fire at both Perez and another officer, Nino Durden. The two officers then returned fire, leaving Ovando paralyzed.[3][4] Perez and his cohort then framed Ovando for the attack and he was found guilty and sentenced to 23 years in prison (Ovando was later released once Perez admitted to shooting and framing Ovando)[5]. After several incidents, LAPD became suspicious of Perez and began to investigate him. Perez later pled guilty to the cocaine theft in exchange for information about other corrupt officers within the Rampart Division. In turn, Perez implicated approximately 70 officers of misconduct.

The resulting scandal—exacerbated by what is widely viewed as inept public relations management by then-chief Bernard Parks—severely compromised the credibility of the LAPD, and the Rampart Division in particular, during a time when the department had only just begun to recover from the public relations fiasco of the Los Angeles Riots.

The most prominent casualty of the scandal was Parks, who was not rehired by newly elected Mayor James K. Hahn in 2001. While Parks's termination was hailed by outside observers and the LAPD's rank and file, Hahn's indelicate handling of the matter cost him the support of South Los Angeles's black community, leading to his crushing defeat by Antonio Villaraigosa in the 2005 election.

[martin II]

lapd activities

On September 8, 1999, a thirty-two-year-old Los Angeles police officer named Rafael Perez, who had been caught stealing a million dollars' worth of cocaine from police evidence-storage facilities, signed a plea bargain in which he promised to help uncover corruption within the Los Angeles Police Department. Perez hinted at a scandal that could involve perhaps five other officers, including a sergeant. Later, Perez began to talk about a different magnitude of corruption -- wrongdoing that he claimed was endemic to special police units such as the one on which he worked, combating gangs in the city's dangerous Rampart district. Perez declared that bogus arrests, perjured testimony, and the planting of "drop guns" on unarmed civilians were commonplace. Perez's story unfolded over a period of months, and ignited what came to be known as the Rampart scandal, which the Los Angeles Times called "the worst corruption scandal in L.A.P.D. history."
Eventually, Perez implicated about seventy officers in wrongdoing, and the questions he raised about police procedure cast the city's criminal-justice system into a state of tumult. More than a hundred convictions were thrown out, and thousands more are still being investigated. The city attorney's office estimated the potential cost of settling civil suits touched off by the Rampart scandal at a hundred and twenty-five million dollars. A city councilman, Joel Wachs, said that it "may well be the worst man-made disaster this city has ever faced." The Rampart scandal finally broke the L.A.P.D. in a way that even the Rodney King beating, in 1991, and its bloody aftermath had not...(continue: read the full article on The New Yorker

[martin II]

THE MULTIPLE CAUSES OF THE LAPD RAMPART SCANDAL 87
On April 1, 1991, in response to the public outcry over the Rodney King beating, the
“Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department,” more
commonly referred to as the “Christopher Commission Report,” was initiated by Mayor Tom
Bradley and the city of Los Angeles. This report found that the LAPD was a paramilitary
organization that was a bastion of racism and bias. “Bias within the LAPD is not confined to
officers’ treatment of the public, but is also reflected in conduct directed to fellow officers who
are members of racial or ethnic minority groups” (Christopher Commission Report, 1991, xiixiii).
The report encouraged stronger moral leadership from the police chief down to the
sergeant:
The Commission believes that the Chief of Police must seek tangible ways
for example, through the use of the discipline system, to establish the principle
that racism and bias based on ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation will not be
tolerated within the Department. We urge that the leadership of the LAPD go
beyond rhetoric in carrying out its existing policies against excessive force. From
the Chief of Police on down to the sergeants, this means taking a firm stand
against the “bad guys” on the force and employing all the instruments available:
training, discipline, assignments, and promotion...We recommend a new standard
of accountability (1991, xiii-xiv).
In May of 2000, as a result of the Rampart Scandal, the Department of Justice intervened
in the affairs of the LAPD. The federal government filed suit against the LAPD after the justice
department conducted a series of interviews with various members of the LAPD. The
Department of Justice, in a formal statement, made it clear to the LAPD that unless the
department entered into a Consent Decree the Department of Justice would file a civil rights
suit. This suit would allege that the LAPD engaged in a pattern of constitutional violations that
included excessive force, false arrests, unreasonable searches and seizures, and the
management deficiencies have allowed this misconduct to occur. The LAPD complied with the
Consent Decree proposed by the Department of Justice (Krasnowski, 2000).
A consent decree is an agreement between involved parties submitted in writing to a
court. A judge approves the agreement and it becomes legally binding. The purpose of the
Consent Decree is to combat systematic police misconduct.

[martin II]

Gilbert's book of fairy tales. You are not the only person to have, what I would call, an inordinate amount of misplaced loyalty.

Gilberts story did not work with the CA judge that distributed ojs stuff. he got nothing.

[William Anthony]

Gilberts story did not work with the CA judge that distributed ojs stuff. he got nothing.

It seems that, like Gilbert's fairy tale book, much of what the Gs rely upon is falling apart under scrutiny.

[martin II]

There was so much abuse,racism,lies and criminal activity in the lapd that DOJ took over management of the force.Doj didn't believe these offences were mistakes or bad memory.

[The Boys]

BTW, if you believe Arnelle is lying, then why haven't charges been brought against her? There is evidence to suggest that at least one other person was also involved, so why not go that person?

Guess we could ask the same about all the people you believe lied on the prosecution's side ... only one of them was brought up on charges. Why not the rest??

[William Anthony]

Guess we could ask the same about all the people you believe lied on the prosecution's side ... only one of them was brought up on charges. Why not the rest??

To me the more interesting question is why was MF the only one charged with perjury. Was it because the prosecution blamed their loss of the case on him due to the fact that he was so blatantly exposed as a liar?

[The Boys]

'OTHER CIVIL SUITS ABOUT MURDER'?

The oj civil suit was not about murder. The judge illegally made a commernt that it was to influence the jury. But the jury was never asked to find oj guilty of murder. i am sure you know this.

No they weren't asked to find him guilty of murder but how earth can you say the trial wasn't about murder?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Did you read all of Arnelle's testimony? She did not have to enter the main using an "outside" door. I believe the only way to enter the back of the house is through the guest rooms in the back.

You have no evidence to support that Simpson ever contacted Arnelle in the early morning to do any thing. There is no proof that Arnelle would even cover for her father. It is obvious that Arnelle was totally unprepared for the detectives visit that morning---had she been involved, she would have been prepared for them.

Never did Clark challenge her on what door she entered. She danced around it and kept dancing even when Arnelle told her it was impossible to enter through the doors the detectives were claiming to have entered.

During the criminal trial, did Clark ever ask any of the detectives if they saw her punch in the alarm? And even if they did, what evidence do you have that they were telling the truth?

The second search warrant proves that they did not know if there was ever a sweat suit, only if they found one, they wanted to collect it. MC has the sweats in the hamper and MF has them in a washing machine. However, no one in the trial ever testified to the contents of the washing machine and no one testified that they took the contents out of the washing machine and determined that they were in fact sweats.

We also know that Doug Deedrick never compared the fibers that were found to a sweat suit. In fact he only testifed he believed they came from the same piece of cloth.

You do not have any evidence to support that Arnelle is lying and the detectives are telling the truth. Arnelle had no reason to lie because she had nothing to hide----however, that can't be said of the detectives.

And Marcia Clark in the prelim hearing did say that Arnelle let them in the front door.

You believe incorrectly. Look at a diagram of the Rockingham estate and see for yourself what back door every one including Arnelle used that morning. The same door that Arnelle normally used to go into the house from her room so she didn’t have to walk all the way around the house to enter the front door. You should also read Arnelle’s criminal trial testimony.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

Arnelle told other lies in the criminal trial to support her initial lie that she led two, not three detectives to the front door of the house. Arnelle said that after she spoke on the phone with Randa, her father, and Juditha Brown she went back to her room (going through the house to the back door). On the way she went through the TV room and the phone rang. She said it was her father calling. She said she spoke with him about five to ten minutes. She said she then opened the back door and went to her room. She said she saw Fuhrman and Kaelin talking outside near Kaelin’s room. Arnelle said when she got to her room she dressed and made several phone calls. She said about ten to fifteen minutes later she left her room and went back to the house. She said Fuhrman and Kaelin were still talking outside Kaelin’s room.

The fact is that according to Simpson’s telephone records Phillips talked to Simpson at 6:05 to 6:10. Arnelle claims in the TV room she spoke to her father on the phone for about five to ten minutes. That means she left the house using the back door at about 6:20 and claimed Fuhrman was still speaking with Kaelin. She says she was in her room for another ten to fifteen minutes and when she left to go back to the house Fuhrman was still speaking with Kaelin outside his room. That makes it about 6:30. So according to Arnelle’s story not only did Fuhrman supposedly speak with Kaelin outside his room for well over a half an hour after the police woke Kaelin up but according to Arnelle’s story Fuhrman, Kaelin, and Vannatter never even went into the house during that time.

The fact is that during that half hour both Fuhrman and Kaelin had shortly followed Arnelle and the other three detectives into the house. When phone calls were being made Vannatter spoke with Kaelin in the TV room, and Mark Fuhrman had gone behind Kaelin’s room to investigate the noises and saw the glove. When Fuhrman returned from the south path he went back there again to show the other detectives what was there and then he and Phillips went to back to Bundy. Fuhrman

Kaelin testified that while he and Vannatter were talking in the Bar Area he heard Arnelle scream. Kaelin said Vannatter then told him Nicole had been murdered. Kaelin said that Arnelle came into the bar area and he and Arnelle hugged. He said he went back to the kitchen with Arnelle while she called Judiitha Brown. Kaelin said he remained in the house until later when the police asked him to leave the property.

Arnelle’s lies just got bigger and bigger.

bobaugust

[martin II]

No they weren't asked to find him guilty of murder but how earth can you say the trial wasn't about murder?

It very simple Murder is always a case for criminal trials as murder is a criminal offense.BY LAW.

BY law civil trials cannot be about murder. it can be about liable. civil trials are about a civil disputes between parties. That is not too difficult to understand.
Trials are about the law not about what individuals think as individuals are all too ofter WRONG.That is why we have laws in the court systems. No civil jury has ever been asked to render a verdict of murder. So your idea of what the oj civil trial was about is just wrong.imo

[fgump2]

The evidence in this case is that MF was asked about seeing a glove (singular) and answered to seeing more than one (plural). You may believe MF, who was later convicted of perjury, and you can imagine he was telling the truth but, I choose to follow the lead of the sophisticated jury and not consider him.

I suggest that you reread the magnificent one's closing.

To hear something significant in Fuhrman's use of the word "them" and not heard anything significant in Simpson's talk during the Bronco chase is strange. In that recording Simpson said "I'm the only one who deserves to be punished", and also said "you are good guys" (to the arresting detectives).

Fuhrman may have been referring to the glove plus the hat as he said. He may also have been thinking of the glove as plural because it is easier to think of a glove as being more plural than a mitten. People often speak in a somewhat garbled manner, especially when they are under the pressure.

And what about when Allen Dersh (whatever his name is ) referred to the murder gloves as "his gloves" (Simpson's gloves)?

[martin II]

CIVIL trials can be about unpaid debts,broken contracts ,divoice, abuse,slander and many other issues but never about nurder.One cannot be charged with murder in a civil trial as murder charges are brought by the state in criminal court. not by individuals.

[martin II]

To hear something significant in Fuhrman's use of the word "them" and not heard anything significant in Simpson's talk during the Bronco chase is strange. In that recording Simpson said "I'm the only one who deserves to be punished", and also said "you are good guys" (to the arresting detectives).

Fuhrman may have been referring to the glove plus the hat as he said. He may also have been thinking of the glove as plural because it is easier to think of a glove as being more plural than a mitten. People often speak in a somewhat garbled manner, especially when they are under the pressure.

And what about when Allen Dersh (whatever his name is ) referred to the murder gloves as "his gloves" (Simpson's gloves)?

Furhman was a seasoned cop. testified many times in court. what pressure was he under?

Furhman spoke of what he was thinking. Sounds like another excuse you are offering.hahaha

if the issue is about furhman saying them why are you talking about something oj said.

[William Anthony]

To hear something significant in Fuhrman's use of the word "them" and not heard anything significant in Simpson's talk during the Bronco chase is strange. In that recording Simpson said "I'm the only one who deserves to be punished", and also said "you are good guys" (to the arresting detectives).

Fuhrman may have been referring to the glove plus the hat as he said. He may also have been thinking of the glove as plural because it is easier to think of a glove as being more plural than a mitten. People often speak in a somewhat garbled manner, especially when they are under the pressure.

And what about when Allen Dersh (whatever his name is ) referred to the murder gloves as "his gloves" (Simpson's gloves)?

First, let me make it clear that I was speaking of the evidence in the criminal trial. The recording that you refer to was not part of the evidence in the criminal trial. However, MF's use of the word "them" was.

Second, I believe there was reasonable doubt and I know what the jury instruction was. Therefore, when two or more reasonable inferences can be drawn from the same evidence, one must choose the one that points toward innocence. AD did not testify/provide evidence in the criminal trial.

[martin II]

To hear something significant in Fuhrman's use of the word "them" and not heard anything significant in Simpson's talk during the Bronco chase is strange. In that recording Simpson said "I'm the only one who deserves to be punished", and also said "you are good guys" (to the arresting detectives).

Fuhrman may have been referring to the glove plus the hat as he said. He may also have been thinking of the glove as plural because it is easier to think of a glove as being more plural than a mitten. People often speak in a somewhat garbled manner, especially when they are under the pressure.

And what about when Allen Dersh (whatever his name is ) referred to the murder gloves as "his gloves" (Simpson's gloves)?

You refer to AD words in a article that could have been a typo. but besides that AD did not testify in the criminal trial? Furhmam did and he used the word THEM. no getting around that,

[martin II]

i am not sure of the motives of your post. You make serious negative claims against simpsom and his defensive team post Racial comments against blacks and jews, unsuported claims or ideas about facts of the case and then admit that you don't know any facts to back your claims.I am not sure if you are posting this nonsense to be augumentive or whether you actually believe it.
When others post facts/links for your consideration you basically state non interest.

You make referance to third rate what you call 'PROFESSIONAL " literterature
from unknows sources anf expect poster to believe what you say their opinions. Always ending with the comment that you have not had the time to check that stuff out.
This is why your post are very confusing to so many. But i don't think any amount of facts in your opinion is worthy of your consideration.imo

[William Anthony]

Furhman was a seasoned cop. testified many times in court. what pressure was he under?

Furhman spoke of what he was thinking. Sounds like another excuse you are offering.hahaha

if the issue is about furhman saying them why are you talking about something oj said.

"March 14th

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HOW MANY TOTAL TIMES HAVE YOU MET WITH EITHER MR. DARDEN, MISS CLARK OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE PROSECUTION TEAM IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: SEVEN OR EIGHT TIMES.

Q: SEVEN OR EIGHT. BEGINNING WHEN AND ENDING WHEN?

A: IT WOULD BE VARIOUS TIMES THIS YEAR, PROBABLY MOSTLY WITHIN THE LAST MONTH AND A HALF.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN WOULD YOU DO THAT? IN THE EVENING OR ON THE WEEKEND?

A: OH, IT WAS -- SOMETIMES IT WAS IN THE LATE AFTERNOON OR EVENING AND IT MIGHT BE IN THE WEEKEND.

Q: WERE ALL OF THOSE MEETINGS IN THIS BUILDING?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WERE THEY ALL IN THE OFFICES OF THE PROSECUTORS?

A: NOT ALWAYS IN THE OFFICE, NO.

Q: WHERE ELSE DID YOU MEET?

A: WE MET ONCE IN THE GRAND JURY ROOM.

Q: WAS THAT TO SIMULATE THE ENVIRONMENT OF A COURTROOM?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THAT OR JUST THE AVAILABILITY OF A FORUM TYPE SETTING.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TESTIFIED IN COURT SINCE YOU BECAME A POLICE OFFICER?

A: COUPLE HUNDRED TIMES I'M SURE.

Q: HUNDREDS?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU EVER TESTIFY AS A MILITARY POLICEMAN BEFORE A COURT-MARTIAL?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES?

A: TWICE I BELIEVE.

Q: WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE A FAIRLY EXPERIENCED WITNESS?

A: I THINK I'VE TESTIFIED NUMEROUS TIMES. YES, SIR.

Q: HOW MANY OF THE CASES IN WHICH YOU'VE TESTIFIED HAVE DEALT WITH HOMICIDE? WHETHER YOU WERE A PATROLMAN OR DETECTIVE IS IRRELEVANT. JUST THE SUBJECT MATTER.

A: DOZENS.

Q: DOZENS?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. IN HOW MANY OF THOSE CASES WERE YOU GIVEN PREPARATORY ASSISTANCE PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY IN A GRAND JURY ROOM, IF YOU CAN REMEMBER?

A: NEVER IN A GRAND JURY ROOM.

Q: THIS WAS A FIRST?

A: YES.

Q: WAS IT EXPLAINED TO YOU WHY THE OFFICES WHICH HAD BEEN AVAILABLE ON THE OTHER OCCASIONS WERE NOT AVAILABLE THAT COMPELLED YOU TO GO INTO THE GRAND JURY ROOM?

A: IT WAS NOT EXPLAINED, NO.

Q: WHERE DID YOU SIT WHILE YOU WERE DISCUSSING YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE WITNESS CHAIR TO THE RIGHT OF THE FOREMAN.

Q: YOU WERE SITTING IN THE WITNESS CHAIR?

A: YES.

Q: MIGHT WE SAY THAT THAT WAS PRACTICING?

A: YES.

Q: YOU'VE NEVER BEFORE PREPARED TO TESTIFY FOR A CASE BY GOING IN A COURTROOM AND SITTING IN THE WITNESS CHAIR, HAVE YOU?

A: I DON'T RECALL DOING THAT, NO.

Q: BUT AS YOU TOLD US AT THE VERY OUTSET OF YOUR TESTIMONY, THIS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IS A SPECIAL CASE; IS IT NOT?

A: I THINK IT WAS AN IMPORTANT CASE. THE WORD "SPECIAL CASE," I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT.

Q: DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT PEOPLE WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH THINGS OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE, THAN THEY WERE WITH THE EVIDENCE AND THAT SET IT APART FROM THE OTHER CASES OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE LEARNED YOU HAD SOME SPECIAL SESSIONS WITH SOME PROSECUTORS I TAKE IT OTHER THAN MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE PRESENT IN THE GRAND JURY?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SEVEN, EIGHT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: SEVEN?

A: SEVEN OR EIGHT.

Q: HOW MANY WERE LAWYERS, IF YOU KNOW?

A: FOUR -- FOUR OR FIVE.

Q: HOW MANY QUESTIONED YOU?

A: THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION GOING ON BETWEEN THEM.

Q: HOW MANY QUESTIONED YOU, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: WELL, I'M TRYING TO GET TO THAT, SIR.

Q: OKAY.

A: TWO, MAYBE THREE.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER WHO THEY WERE?

A: YES.

Q: WHO WERE THEY?

A: MR. DARDEN, MR. WHITE.

Q: MR. WHITE. COULD YOU HELP US WITH THAT ONE?

A: TERRY WHITE.

Q: TERRY WHITE.

A: AND I BELIEVE MR. YOCHELSON."

[bobaugust]

First, let me make it clear that I was speaking of the evidence in the criminal trial. The recording that you refer to was not part of the evidence in the criminal trial. However, MF's use of the word "them" was.

Second, I believe there was reasonable doubt and I know what the jury instruction was. Therefore, when two or more reasonable inferences can be drawn from the same evidence, one must choose the one that points toward innocence. AD did not testify/provide evidence in the criminal trial.

So you actually think this is reasonable doubt? Wow, a second glove under the plant leaves which there is absolutely no evidence of except what you imagine Fuhrman meant when he said the word “them” and despite the fact that Fuhrman testified that when he said the word “them” he was referring to the same evidence that he had previously testified to seeing as well as every witness testified to seeing under the plant leaves, a knit hat and a glove.

Once again you display an extremely low threshold for what you think is reasonable.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

So you actually think this is reasonable doubt? Wow, a second glove under the plant leaves which there is absolutely no evidence of except what you imagine Fuhrman meant when he said the word “them” and despite the fact that Fuhrman testified that when he said the word “them” he was referring to the same evidence that he had previously testified to seeing as well as every witness testified to seeing under the plant leaves, a knit hat and a glove.

Once again you display an extremely low threshold for what you think is reasonable.

bobaugust

If that was all I was basing my believe upon, you may have a valid point but, as you well know from years of our communications, I view all the evidence to include that MF, whether true or not admitted to manipulating/manufacturing/planting evidence, the fact that he testified to investigating the location of where he allegedly found the second glove and saw no blood or disturbance in that area and blood, identified as Simpson's was found in another location other than where the second glove was found.

I might say that for you to ignore all this other evidence and believe that the convicted perjurer spoke truthfully when he was trapped by his own slip/non slip of the tongue means you demonstrate an extremely low threshold for what you think is reasonable but, since I am being respectful I will not say that.

[martin II]

"March 14th

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HOW MANY TOTAL TIMES HAVE YOU MET WITH EITHER MR. DARDEN, MISS CLARK OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE PROSECUTION TEAM IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: SEVEN OR EIGHT TIMES.

Q: SEVEN OR EIGHT. BEGINNING WHEN AND ENDING WHEN?

A: IT WOULD BE VARIOUS TIMES THIS YEAR, PROBABLY MOSTLY WITHIN THE LAST MONTH AND A HALF.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN WOULD YOU DO THAT? IN THE EVENING OR ON THE WEEKEND?

A: OH, IT WAS -- SOMETIMES IT WAS IN THE LATE AFTERNOON OR EVENING AND IT MIGHT BE IN THE WEEKEND.

Q: WERE ALL OF THOSE MEETINGS IN THIS BUILDING?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WERE THEY ALL IN THE OFFICES OF THE PROSECUTORS?

A: NOT ALWAYS IN THE OFFICE, NO.

Q: WHERE ELSE DID YOU MEET?

A: WE MET ONCE IN THE GRAND JURY ROOM.

Q: WAS THAT TO SIMULATE THE ENVIRONMENT OF A COURTROOM?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THAT OR JUST THE AVAILABILITY OF A FORUM TYPE SETTING.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TESTIFIED IN COURT SINCE YOU BECAME A POLICE OFFICER?

A: COUPLE HUNDRED TIMES I'M SURE.

Q: HUNDREDS?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU EVER TESTIFY AS A MILITARY POLICEMAN BEFORE A COURT-MARTIAL?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES?

A: TWICE I BELIEVE.

Q: WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE A FAIRLY EXPERIENCED WITNESS?

A: I THINK I'VE TESTIFIED NUMEROUS TIMES. YES, SIR.

Q: HOW MANY OF THE CASES IN WHICH YOU'VE TESTIFIED HAVE DEALT WITH HOMICIDE? WHETHER YOU WERE A PATROLMAN OR DETECTIVE IS IRRELEVANT. JUST THE SUBJECT MATTER.

A: DOZENS.

Q: DOZENS?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. IN HOW MANY OF THOSE CASES WERE YOU GIVEN PREPARATORY ASSISTANCE PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY IN A GRAND JURY ROOM, IF YOU CAN REMEMBER?

A: NEVER IN A GRAND JURY ROOM.

Q: THIS WAS A FIRST?

A: YES.

Q: WAS IT EXPLAINED TO YOU WHY THE OFFICES WHICH HAD BEEN AVAILABLE ON THE OTHER OCCASIONS WERE NOT AVAILABLE THAT COMPELLED YOU TO GO INTO THE GRAND JURY ROOM?

A: IT WAS NOT EXPLAINED, NO.

Q: WHERE DID YOU SIT WHILE YOU WERE DISCUSSING YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE WITNESS CHAIR TO THE RIGHT OF THE FOREMAN.

Q: YOU WERE SITTING IN THE WITNESS CHAIR?

A: YES.

Q: MIGHT WE SAY THAT THAT WAS PRACTICING?

A: YES.

Q: YOU'VE NEVER BEFORE PREPARED TO TESTIFY FOR A CASE BY GOING IN A COURTROOM AND SITTING IN THE WITNESS CHAIR, HAVE YOU?

A: I DON'T RECALL DOING THAT, NO.

Q: BUT AS YOU TOLD US AT THE VERY OUTSET OF YOUR TESTIMONY, THIS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IS A SPECIAL CASE; IS IT NOT?

A: I THINK IT WAS AN IMPORTANT CASE. THE WORD "SPECIAL CASE," I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT.

Q: DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT PEOPLE WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH THINGS OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE, THAN THEY WERE WITH THE EVIDENCE AND THAT SET IT APART FROM THE OTHER CASES OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE LEARNED YOU HAD SOME SPECIAL SESSIONS WITH SOME PROSECUTORS I TAKE IT OTHER THAN MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE PRESENT IN THE GRAND JURY?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SEVEN, EIGHT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: SEVEN?

A: SEVEN OR EIGHT.

Q: HOW MANY WERE LAWYERS, IF YOU KNOW?

A: FOUR -- FOUR OR FIVE.

Q: HOW MANY QUESTIONED YOU?

A: THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION GOING ON BETWEEN THEM.

Q: HOW MANY QUESTIONED YOU, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: WELL, I'M TRYING TO GET TO THAT, SIR.

Q: OKAY.

A: TWO, MAYBE THREE.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER WHO THEY WERE?

A: YES.

Q: WHO WERE THEY?

A: MR. DARDEN, MR. WHITE.

Q: MR. WHITE. COULD YOU HELP US WITH THAT ONE?

A: TERRY WHITE.

Q: TERRY WHITE.

A: AND I BELIEVE MR. YOCHELSON."

that sounds like a detail rehersal to make sure furhman knew what the DA wanted his testimony to be. Or telling him what it had to be.The da knew furhman had racial issue so i wonder if they coached him on that issue.

[William Anthony]

that sounds like a detail rehersal to make sure furhman knew what the DA wanted his testimony to be. Or telling him what it had to be.The da knew furhman had racial issue so i wonder if they coached him on that issue.

We know it was something other than the evidence.:);):cool:

[martin II]

So you actually think this is reasonable doubt? Wow, a second glove under the plant leaves which there is absolutely no evidence of except what you imagine Fuhrman meant when he said the word “them” and despite the fact that Fuhrman testified that when he said the word “them” he was referring to the same evidence that he had previously testified to seeing as well as every witness testified to seeing under the plant leaves, a knit hat and a glove.

Once again you display an extremely low threshold for what you think is reasonable.

bobaugust

BOB

From your many post it is my opinion that you believe proof beyond a reasonalbe doubt means something lower that what it means.

[martin II]

We know it was something other than the evidence.:);):cool:

I think the DA idea was damm the evidence we can cook up a good story to fool the jury.We do it all the time. That is what we do around here.

[tv]

To hear something significant in Fuhrman's use of the word "them" and not heard anything significant in Simpson's talk during the Bronco chase is strange. In that recording Simpson said "I'm the only one who deserves to be punished", and also said "you are good guys" (to the arresting detectives).

Fuhrman may have been referring to the glove plus the hat as he said. He may also have been thinking of the glove as plural because it is easier to think of a glove as being more plural than a mitten. People often speak in a somewhat garbled manner, especially when they are under the pressure.

And what about when Allen Dersh (whatever his name is ) referred to the murder gloves as "his gloves" (Simpson's gloves)?

I remember this -- thanks for the reminder :) --

Speaking before the judge the day after Simpson tried on the murderer's gloves in front of the jury, Dershowitz said:

"If the prosecution has a second opportunity, if they could do what we when were [sic] kids called a do-over, obviously they would try this case differently. I doubt that we would see OJ Simpson being asked to try on his gloves. I doubt that we would see Dennis Fung being called as a witness."

If people want to say Fuhrman meant what he said then I think the same can be said of Alan Dershowitz. They can't have it both ways. Either they both mispoke or they both revealed truths. Which is it? :shrug:

[weezer]

I remember this -- thanks for the reminder :) --

Speaking before the judge the day after Simpson tried on the murderer's gloves in front of the jury, Dershowitz said:

"If the prosecution has a second opportunity, if they could do what we when were [sic] kids called a do-over, obviously they would try this case differently. I doubt that we would see OJ Simpson being asked to try on his gloves. I doubt that we would see Dennis Fung being called as a witness."

If people want to say Fuhrman meant what he said then I think the same can be said of Alan Dershowitz. They can't have it both ways. Either they both mispoke or they both revealed truths. Which is it? :shrug:

Perfect! :beer::beer:

[martin II]

fgump2

you seem to be havimg a problem finding articles on the blue wall of silence so i though i would give you a few. if these are not enough there are many more.

Blue Code of Silence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Blue Code of Silence (or Blue Wall of Silence) is an unwritten rule among many police officers in the United States not to report on another colleague's errors, misconducts or crimes. It is considered to be the worst kind of betrayal if this code is broken.

Ironically, it is similar to the code of silence in organized crime, like the Omertà.

Studies demonstrate that most police feel that the code is applicable in cases of "illegal brutality or bending of the rules in order to protect colleagues from criminal proceedings," but not to illegal actions with an "acquisitive motive."[1][2]

--------------------------

The Blue Wall of Silence, does not have an official existence. This is not a written code. John Diedrich in the Milwaukee Sentinel article titled “Wall of Silence Not Breaking” calls it the ‘unwritten code of silence’. By common reasoning, it is easy to connect the existence of police brutality with the Blue Wall of Silence. Where there is police brutality, the issue of the Blue Wall of Silence coexists. Hence it can be concluded using deductive reasoning that the Blue Wall of Silence exists at all levels of the police. The existence of the Blue Wall of Silence affects the prisoners who face police brutality, as well as the righteous police officers who try to tear down the Blue Wall of Silence.

The case of Frank Jude Jr. merits special attention in this context. Frank Jude Jr., was savagely beaten Oct. 24 by a dozen men who, witnesses said identified themselves as off-duty police officers. This was a case in which the officers’ testimony became crucial. This is a case when the Blue Wall of Silence affects the life of Frank Jude Jr., a victim of police brutality. According to New York Daily News, Barry, a 16-year veteran of the force, contends she was demoted and brought up on disciplinary charges after whistle-blowing on the truancy unit of the Queens South Task Force in 1998. Barry was demoted, assigned to midnight tours and accused of failing to supervise her unit. She was further labeled by other cops as a ‘rat’."Cops will tolerate psychos, alcoholics, wife-beaters, dweebs and geeks, but they will not tolerate rats. Period," said Tony Bouza, chief of the Minneapolis Police Department from 1980 to 1988. In this particular case, the Blue Wall of Silence has affected the life of a righteous police officer, Barry.

------------------------

Behind the NYPD's Blue Wall of Silence
NYPD
A City and Its Police
By James Lardner and Thomas Reppetto
Henry Holt -- 368pp -- $27.50




RELATED ITEMS
Behind the NYPD's Blue Wall of Silence

PHOTO: Cover, ``NYPD''


In New York City, like most big American cities, the police force produces more than its share of tabloid fodder. And nothing excites the public like police misdeeds, actual or alleged. Violent crime in the Big Apple is at a 30-year low, but this achievement has been largely overshadowed by the 1997 station-house torture of Haitian Abner Louima and the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed West African immigrant cut down in a hail of police gunfire on the steps of his apartment building. After the four plainclothes cops who shot him were acquitted of murder charges, Bruce Springsteen stoked a furor-within-a-furor merely by performing a new song about Diallo--the as-yet-unrecorded 41 Shots.

-------------------



Blue Wall of Silence 43 up, 4 down
The notion that despite police rules and regulations; a
police officer may not turn in or otherwise provide damaging information in regards to a fellow officer. The term is more for the use of only corrupt police officers and not the police force in general.

The Blue Wall of Silence is prevelant in many cases involving police corruption here in the State of Georgia.


----------------------

Noun 1. blue wall of silence - the secrecy of police officers who lie or look the other way to protect other police officers; "the blue wall cracked when some officers refused to take part in the cover-up"
blue wall, wall of silence
cover-up - concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public

[weezer]

tv -- what's that ruling Ito made about LE in this case?

[bobaugust]

If that was all I was basing my believe upon, you may have a valid point but, as you well know from years of our communications, I view all the evidence to include that MF, whether true or not admitted to manipulating/manufacturing/planting evidence, the fact that he testified to investigating the location of where he allegedly found the second glove and saw no blood or disturbance in that area and blood, identified as Simpson's was found in another location other than where the second glove was found.

I might say that for you to ignore all this other evidence and believe that the convicted perjurer spoke truthfully when he was trapped by his own slip/non slip of the tongue means you demonstrate an extremely low threshold for what you think is reasonable but, since I am being respectful I will not say that.

I understand that because of your beliefs as to what you kind of person you think Mark Fuhrman is that you refuse to believe anything he said in this case, but that is not evidence that when he said the word “them” means he saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy when in fact that there were two pieces of evidence together under the plant leaves, a knit hat and a glove. A knit hat and a glove that witnesses testified to seeing two hours before Mark Fuhrman ever arrived at Bundy.

The fact that there was no blood on the leaves near the Rockingham glove is not evidence that the glove was not dropped there by the killer shortly after the murders. The fact that there was no noticeable disturbance near the glove is not evidence that no one had been on that path before the glove was discovered since there is plenty of evidence that someone was on that path behind Kaelin’s room shortly before Allan Park first saw Kaelin and Simpson that night. The evidence are the noises Kaelin heard and the vibrations he felt that caused him to first think there may have been an earthquake and as he said if it wasn’t’ an earthquake then someone was back there. Additional evidence is the fact that the killer’s right hand glove was discovered on that path some seven hours later exactly opposite the very place on that sturdy wall that Kaelin testified he heard those noises and felt the vibrations.

There is absolutely no evidence that there was a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived or that Mark Fuhrman ever saw a second glove at Bundy. There is no physical evidence that Mark Fuhrman ever handled the killer’s right hand glove. There is only evidence Mark Fuhrman discovered that glove over seven hours after the murders were committed.

Later physical evidence found on that glove pointed to Simpson as the person handling that glove, not Fuhrman. Simpson’s blood along with both victims blood, some blue black cotton fibers the same as were found on Ron Goldman’s shirt and Simpson’s socks, An unusual x-shaped fiber consistent with Simpson’s Bronco carpeting.

I’m sorry to say that the only evidence that supports your so called reasonable doubt is all in your imagination.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Perfect! :beer::beer:

you may have forgotten AD did not testify.So his mispoken word means nothing.

[martin II]

I remember this -- thanks for the reminder :) --

Speaking before the judge the day after Simpson tried on the murderer's gloves in front of the jury, Dershowitz said:

"If the prosecution has a second opportunity, if they could do what we when were [sic] kids called a do-over, obviously they would try this case differently. I doubt that we would see OJ Simpson being asked to try on his gloves. I doubt that we would see Dennis Fung being called as a witness."

If people want to say Fuhrman meant what he said then I think the same can be said of Alan Dershowitz. They can't have it both ways. Either they both mispoke or they both revealed truths. Which is it? :shrug:

The prosecution would love a do over after they lost.

[tv]

tv -- what's that ruling Ito made about LE in this case?

:)

"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support." :patriot:

[weezer]

:)

"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support." :patriot:

That's it! :patriot: That's the one! :beer::beer:

[martin II]

:)

"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support." :patriot:

WE know someone placed the glove there and we know it was not oj. there was no proof of that.:cool:

[martin II]

:)

"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support." :patriot:

The record suports the fact that there was no proof that oj was in the s walkway and could not have placed the glove there.

[tv]

That's it! :patriot: That's the one! :beer::beer:

OJ Simpson's DNA on Rockingham Glove, Item 9

G10 inside by wrist notch -- OJS, NB

G11 outside near wrist notch -- OJS, NB, RG

G13 stitching, wrist notch -- OJS, NB, RG

[martin II]

OJ Simpson's DNA on Rockingham Glove, Item 9

G10 inside by wrist notch -- OJS, NB

G11 outside near wrist notch -- OJS, NB, RG

G13 stitching, wrist notch -- OJS, NB, RG

The problem with the description of the gloves was that RUBINS claimed that his tight fitting gloves were ex large and ojs hands were 2x large. Rubin didn't know that. After the gloves didn't fit the DA looked at Rubin and asked WHAT HAPPENED. Rubin then said the gloves SHRUNK.Cochran then asked him if some liquid was put on his expensive gloves would they shrink he said no.
bottom line there was no proof that oj wore those court gloves as they did fit his hands.

[martin II]

OJ Simpson's DNA on Rockingham Glove, Item 9

G10 inside by wrist notch -- OJS, NB

G11 outside near wrist notch -- OJS, NB, RG

G13 stitching, wrist notch -- OJS, NB, RG

All one needs to put blood on a glove is a Q tip and blood from a vial.

[GreenIce]

You believe incorrectly. Look at a diagram of the Rockingham estate and see for yourself what back door every one including Arnelle used that morning. The same door that Arnelle normally used to go into the house from her room so she didn’t have to walk all the way around the house to enter the front door. You should also read Arnelle’s criminal trial testimony.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

Arnelle told other lies in the criminal trial to support her initial lie that she led two, not three detectives to the front door of the house. Arnelle said that after she spoke on the phone with Randa, her father, and Juditha Brown she went back to her room (going through the house to the back door). On the way she went through the TV room and the phone rang. She said it was her father calling. She said she spoke with him about five to ten minutes. She said she then opened the back door and went to her room. She said she saw Fuhrman and Kaelin talking outside near Kaelin’s room. Arnelle said when she got to her room she dressed and made several phone calls. She said about ten to fifteen minutes later she left her room and went back to the house. She said Fuhrman and Kaelin were still talking outside Kaelin’s room.

The fact is that according to Simpson’s telephone records Phillips talked to Simpson at 6:05 to 6:10. Arnelle claims in the TV room she spoke to her father on the phone for about five to ten minutes. That means she left the house using the back door at about 6:20 and claimed Fuhrman was still speaking with Kaelin. She says she was in her room for another ten to fifteen minutes and when she left to go back to the house Fuhrman was still speaking with Kaelin outside his room. That makes it about 6:30. So according to Arnelle’s story not only did Fuhrman supposedly speak with Kaelin outside his room for well over a half an hour after the police woke Kaelin up but according to Arnelle’s story Fuhrman, Kaelin, and Vannatter never even went into the house during that time.

The fact is that during that half hour both Fuhrman and Kaelin had shortly followed Arnelle and the other three detectives into the house. When phone calls were being made Vannatter spoke with Kaelin in the TV room, and Mark Fuhrman had gone behind Kaelin’s room to investigate the noises and saw the glove. When Fuhrman returned from the south path he went back there again to show the other detectives what was there and then he and Phillips went to back to Bundy. Fuhrman

Kaelin testified that while he and Vannatter were talking in the Bar Area he heard Arnelle scream. Kaelin said Vannatter then told him Nicole had been murdered. Kaelin said that Arnelle came into the bar area and he and Arnelle hugged. He said he went back to the kitchen with Arnelle while she called Judiitha Brown. Kaelin said he remained in the house until later when the police asked him to leave the property.

Arnelle’s lies just got bigger and bigger.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I can't read that diagram, it is very blurry.

However, Arnelle was the only person who testified about which door was entered in the prelim hearing. So any thing the detectives say that contradict that, means nothing. Arnelle had no reason to lie, it is clear the detectives did not suspect her of being involved in the crime. None of her actions were that of a person who was trying to cover for someone who committed a crime.

However, all 4 detectives were caught in lies, they had motives to lie.

Also, you have given Kato the excuses for why he made mistakes, does this standard only apply to those you deem worthy of making mistakes? Don't you think getting woken up from a sound sleep by 4 detectives who were firing questions at her as well as not being told right away what is wrong, could explain why she may have been off about how long she spoke to someone or where exactly she was when she made a phone call?

Why would she lie about how detectives were following her? Since she was in the lead and they let her walk into the house first, perhaps, she did not realize that one detective stayed behind?

What did Arnelle have to gain and how did this help her father by saying she only lead two detectives versus 3? What did she have to gain about lying what door she used when she entered the house?

And since you are so convinced that she is lying about not using the back door, then why didn't Simpson use this door to enter his home, unseen? Why didn't he enter the main house using Arnelle's room?

By your insistent that there were at least two ways of entering the main house from the rear of the estate, only supports what NG's have been saying for years, Simpson never would have entered his home by using the front door, especially knowing that the limo driver was already there.

[GreenIce]

All one needs to put blood on a glove is a Q tip and blood from a vial.

Martin,

There is only poster that insists that there was a combination of Nicole's, Ron's and OJ's blood on the Rockingham glove. In Hank Goldberg's book, that is not what he writes, nor Bosco's book.

When the first results came back they knew it was at least a mixture of Ron's and Nicole's blood but the results were not conclusive for a third person's nor was there any test that was conclusive that if a third person's blood was in that mixture, it was OJ Simpson's. I believe the key phrase was it could have been.

Also, as we know, Ron and Nicole's blood was found on the inside the glove on the fingers---I can't figure out for the life me how it got there. I can't think of one single way how it got there other then it was put there on purpose or was accidental.

[GreenIce]

Guess we could ask the same about all the people you believe lied on the prosecution's side ... only one of them was brought up on charges. Why not the rest??

The Boys,

You and Mark Fuhrman are agreement on this subject. He is very upset that he was the detective who was brought up on perjury charges. He feels very strongly that at least VA should have also been brought up on charges as well Capt. York. Believe it or not, can't say that I blame him.

[bobaugust]

The record suports the fact that there was no proof that oj was in the s walkway and could not have placed the glove there.

There were only three people on Simpson’s estate, Kaelin, Park, and Simpson when Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall and believed someone was behind his room. There is both circumstantial and physical evidence that it was Simpson who Kaelin heard behind his room.

Allan Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson outside at the same time at the front of the house for the first time that night only minutes after Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall. It took both Kaelin and Simpson the same amount of time after Kaelin had heard the noises to each make it to the front of the house each going their own way. Kaelin had come from his room going around the north portion of Simpson’s house and Simpson had come from the back of Kaelin’s room where he unknowingly dropped his glove going around the south portion of his house.

Physical evidence found on the glove pointed to Simpson. Simpson’s blood, blue black cotton fibers that were also found on Ron’s shirt and Simpson’s socks, and a fiber consistent with Simpson’s Bronco carpeting.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I can't read that diagram, it is very blurry.

However, Arnelle was the only person who testified about which door was entered in the prelim hearing. So any thing the detectives say that contradict that, means nothing. Arnelle had no reason to lie, it is clear the detectives did not suspect her of being involved in the crime. None of her actions were that of a person who was trying to cover for someone who committed a crime.

However, all 4 detectives were caught in lies, they had motives to lie.

Also, you have given Kato the excuses for why he made mistakes, does this standard only apply to those you deem worthy of making mistakes? Don't you think getting woken up from a sound sleep by 4 detectives who were firing questions at her as well as not being told right away what is wrong, could explain why she may have been off about how long she spoke to someone or where exactly she was when she made a phone call?

Why would she lie about how detectives were following her? Since she was in the lead and they let her walk into the house first, perhaps, she did not realize that one detective stayed behind?

What did Arnelle have to gain and how did this help her father by saying she only lead two detectives versus 3? What did she have to gain about lying what door she used when she entered the house?

And since you are so convinced that she is lying about not using the back door, then why didn't Simpson use this door to enter his home, unseen? Why didn't he enter the main house using Arnelle's room?

By your insistent that there were at least two ways of entering the main house from the rear of the estate, only supports what NG's have been saying for years, Simpson never would have entered his home by using the front door, especially knowing that the limo driver was already there.

If you click on the link I provided it will take you to a web page that shows two diagrams of the Rockingham estate, one in black and white and the other in color. If you click on the color diagram it will enlarge and you can clearly see why your comments as to how Simpson could have entered his house make no sense.

Arnelle’s story is completely contradicted by the four detectives as well as Kato Kaelin because it is a pure fabrication most likely put together by her father who as we all know from his civil trial testimony fabricated almost everything he said he did the night of the murders regardless of how many lies he had to tell or how many witnesses contradicted him.

Kato Kaelin, a Simpson supporter and friend of Arnelle’s completely contradicted Arnelle’s story regarding what door she opened to let the three detectives into Simpson’s house as well as where he and Mark Fuhrman were when phone calls were made from Simpson’s kitchen. Kato Kaelin had no reason to lie but Arnelle evidently did.

bobaugust

[martin II]

There were only three people on Simpson’s estate, Kaelin, Park, and Simpson when Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall and believed someone was behind his room. There is both circumstantial and physical evidence that it was Simpson who Kaelin heard behind his room.

Allan Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson outside at the same time at the front of the house for the first time that night only minutes after Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall. It took both Kaelin and Simpson the same amount of time after Kaelin had heard the noises to each make it to the front of the house each going their own way. Kaelin had come from his room going around the north portion of Simpson’s house and Simpson had come from the back of Kaelin’s room where he unknowingly dropped his glove going around the south portion of his house.

Physical evidence found on the glove pointed to Simpson. Simpson’s blood, blue black cotton fibers that were also found on Ron’s shirt and Simpson’s socks, and a fiber consistent with Simpson’s Bronco carpeting.

bobaugust
There was no physical evidence found in the walkway that proves oj was there. Vanhatter and two other deterctives said they saw no evidence that oj or anyone else jumped the fence or was there.

OJ simpson was in his house when kato said he heard a noise.

[martin II]

Martin,

There is only poster that insists that there was a combination of Nicole's, Ron's and OJ's blood on the Rockingham glove. In Hank Goldberg's book, that is not what he writes, nor Bosco's book.

When the first results came back they knew it was at least a mixture of Ron's and Nicole's blood but the results were not conclusive for a third person's nor was there any test that was conclusive that if a third person's blood was in that mixture, it was OJ Simpson's. I believe the key phrase was it could have been.

Also, as we know, Ron and Nicole's blood was found on the inside the glove on the fingers---I can't figure out for the life me how it got there. I can't think of one single way how it got there other then it was put there on purpose or was accidental.


Someone switched Am samples in the lab. vanhatter had ojs blood ,nicoles blood and rons blood. with a q tip blood can be placed on a glove , or any other place the holder of the blood desires it to be.

[GreenIce]

If you click on the link I provided it will take you to a web page that shows two diagrams of the Rockingham estate, one in black and white and the other in color. If you click on the color diagram it will enlarge and you can clearly see why your comments as to how Simpson could have entered his house make no sense.

Arnelle’s story is completely contradicted by the four detectives as well as Kato Kaelin because it is a pure fabrication most likely put together by her father who as we all know from his civil trial testimony fabricated almost everything he said he did the night of the murders regardless of how many lies he had to tell or how many witnesses contradicted him.

Kato Kaelin, a Simpson supporter and friend of Arnelle’s completely contradicted Arnelle’s story regarding what door she opened to let the three detectives into Simpson’s house as well as where he and Mark Fuhrman were when phone calls were made from Simpson’s kitchen. Kato Kaelin had no reason to lie but Arnelle evidently did.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You can't have it both ways regarding Kato. You can't have being a Simpson supporter and a friend of Arnelle therefore he was slanting his testimony to favor Simpson. Kato had plenty of opportunities to keep his mouth shut or to throw the police off to a different direction.

The only question I have about Kato is that he claimed there was no book deal when the author of the book said that there was one. Clark opted not to impeach him on this.

Thank you for the advice on the link. I really can't read it.

Neither Arnelle or Kato had a reason to lie, however, in all fairness to them, after being woken up by the police and knowing something terrible has happened, I am sure honest mistakes could have been made by both of them.

However, the police are not entitled to those same mistakes.

What I find puzzling is how many times these three detectives told and gave the exact same reason why they weren't aware of certain information as well as only hearing part of conversation.

In Ron Phillips testimony, he has himself asking Arnelle direct questions but doesn't recall all of her answers because the two other detectives jumped in. So Phillips, being a detective is asking her questions but she totally disrespects him by not answering them? And then gets even by not listening to her responses to the other detectives questions?

Sorry Mr. August, listening is a job requirement is a very important part of being a detective.

Techincally, and door that is not on the front of the house can be called a "back door". Phillips testified that they did not enter the rear door, it appeared to be something like a side door.

Neither Fuhrman nor Vanatter and Lange every accuse Arnelle of anything. In fact in VA an Lange's book, they say she full cooperated with them and never appeared to be evasive or to get in the way in their investigation.

It is not to their benefit to paint Arnelle or any of her actions to be sinister support of her father. How many detectives or which door they entered has no bearing on the evidence. None of this helps her father.

Also there is no link that Arnelle ever talked to her father after the murders and before the detectives arrived. She was not prepared for police, if she was involved or if she was told to wash some clothes at night, I am pretty sure she would have been suspicious and I highly doubt that cops would not have noticed that.

There is nothing in her demeanor to suggest she was involved with the clean up.

[William Anthony]

I remember this -- thanks for the reminder :) --

Speaking before the judge the day after Simpson tried on the murderer's gloves in front of the jury, Dershowitz said:

"If the prosecution has a second opportunity, if they could do what we when were [sic] kids called a do-over, obviously they would try this case differently. I doubt that we would see OJ Simpson being asked to try on his gloves. I doubt that we would see Dennis Fung being called as a witness."

If people want to say Fuhrman meant what he said then I think the same can be said of Alan Dershowitz. They can't have it both ways. Either they both mispoke or they both revealed truths. Which is it? :shrug:

AD was not under oath or was he asked a specific question under oath. Therefore, AD's statement is just like any other out of court statement made to try to admit the truth of the matter asserted, hearsay, imho, although it doesn't even fit into that category as it is not a statement of someone other than the declarant and as such is nothing more than an opinion. :);):cool:

[GreenIce]

There was no physical evidence found in the walkway that proves oj was there. Vanhatter and two other deterctives said they saw no evidence that oj or anyone else jumped the fence or was there.

OJ simpson was in his house when kato said he heard a noise.

Martin,

Also, Kato saw that both gates were closed into the alley way. One was broken and had to moved, there was no evidence that the gate was moved.
Also, it makes no sense that Simpson would not have had a reaction when Kato told him about the noise. IMO, if Simpson was the killer, had to know by then he dropped the glove, why not walk into the alley way, grab the glove or to give himself a reason to be in that alley way.

[William Anthony]

:)

"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support." :patriot:

Which he changed his mind by the time of the closings. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I understand that because of your beliefs as to what you kind of person you think Mark Fuhrman is that you refuse to believe anything he said in this case, but that is not evidence that when he said the word “them” means he saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy when in fact that there were two pieces of evidence together under the plant leaves, a knit hat and a glove. A knit hat and a glove that witnesses testified to seeing two hours before Mark Fuhrman ever arrived at Bundy. (It is the prosecution's renunciation of MF and the court's proclamation that he s a perjurer, not my belief. You may want to ignore the court's findings, as you do with the criminal verdict, but I am bound by them.

The fact that there was no blood on the leaves near the Rockingham glove is not evidence that the glove was not dropped there by the killer shortly after the murders. The fact that there was no noticeable disturbance near the glove is not evidence that no one had been on that path before the glove was discovered since there is plenty of evidence that someone was on that path behind Kaelin’s room shortly before Allan Park first saw Kaelin and Simpson that night. The evidence are the noises Kaelin heard and the vibrations he felt that caused him to first think there may have been an earthquake and as he said if it wasn’t’ an earthquake then someone was back there. Additional evidence is the fact that the killer’s right hand glove was discovered on that path some seven hours later exactly opposite the very place on that sturdy wall that Kaelin testified he heard those noises and felt the vibrations. (The evidence is that there is no evidence of anyone being back there, except that an inference can be drawn from circumstantial evidence that someone or something was back there when the noise was heard. However, we have direct evidence from the person that allegedly found the glove that there was one back there before him.)

There is absolutely no evidence that there was a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived or that Mark Fuhrman ever saw a second glove at Bundy. There is no physical evidence that Mark Fuhrman ever handled the killer’s right hand glove. There is only evidence Mark Fuhrman discovered that glove over seven hours after the murders were committed. (The evidence was provided by MF's slip/non slip forked tongue, meaning simply his testimony.)

Later physical evidence found on that glove pointed to Simpson as the person handling that glove, not Fuhrman. Simpson’s blood along with both victims blood, some blue black cotton fibers the same as were found on Ron Goldman’s shirt and Simpson’s socks, An unusual x-shaped fiber consistent with Simpson’s Bronco carpeting.

I’m sorry to say that the only evidence that supports your so called reasonable doubt is all in your imagination.

bobaugust

It is not surprising that later evidence pointed to Simpson when one considers the staged exparte prosecution video made to explain away the missing blood, IMHO. You refusal to acknowledge the evidence, I could say, makes you unreasonably conclude there was no reasonable doubt but I am following the moderator's instructions and remaining respectful, so I will not say that.

[The Boys]

It very simple Murder is always a case for criminal trials as murder is a criminal offense.BY LAW.

BY law civil trials cannot be about murder. it can be about liable. civil trials are about a civil disputes between parties. That is not too difficult to understand.
Trials are about the law not about what individuals think as individuals are all too ofter WRONG.That is why we have laws in the court systems. No civil jury has ever been asked to render a verdict of murder. So your idea of what the oj civil trial was about is just wrong.imo

LOl, dude read what I wrote. It doesn't matter that the civil trial can't charge someone with murder but when somebody has been murdered and there's a civil trial accusing somebody for causing the wrongful death then murder is still the center of the civil trial, the defendant just isn't charged with murder and can't go to jail. If you don't talk about the murder then how can you even present or defend the case?

Bob Baker, O.J. Simpson's civil trial lead attorney even knows that the topic of murder was part of the trial. This from his opening statements:

"Mr. Simpson
would not, could not ever kill Nicole and leave her body where his
children would find the horror of her in a pool of blood."

"Mr. Simpson did not, could not kill anyone."

"And when this case is all done, and it's all finished, I'm confident
you'll conclude my client is no murderer."

This from the mouth of Simpson's attorney ... now you wanna kick back and tell me that murder wasn't part of the civil trial? :rolleyes:

[tv]

LOl, dude read what I wrote. It doesn't matter that the civil trial can't charge someone with murder but when somebody has been murdered and there's a civil trial accusing somebody for causing the wrongful death then murder is still the center of the civil trial, the defendant just isn't charged with murder and can't go to jail. If you don't talk about the murder then how can you even present or defend the case?

Bob Baker, O.J. Simpson's civil trial lead attorney even knows that the topic of murder was part of the trial. This from his opening statements:

"Mr. Simpson
would not, could not ever kill Nicole and leave her body where his
children would find the horror of her in a pool of blood."

"Mr. Simpson did not, could not kill anyone."

"And when this case is all done, and it's all finished, I'm confident
you'll conclude my client is no murderer."

This from the mouth of Simpson's attorney ... now you wanna kick back and tell me that murder wasn't part of the civil trial? :rolleyes:

Of course it was about murder -- a bloody, heartless slaughter. For those who think Simpson is a hero or is a symbol of righting wrongs done to the black community by LE it's all they have. They have to mince words, nitpick legal terminology and use their imaginations to find an explanation, however unrealistic and unreasonable, to blame ANYONE else for the murders and EVERYONE of conspiring against their guy. Remember, these are the people that claim, without one shred of proof, that evidence was planted and that it's possible Jason Simpson did it. It boggles the mind.

[martin II]

LOl, dude read what I wrote. It doesn't matter that the civil trial can't charge someone with murder but when somebody has been murdered and there's a civil trial accusing somebody for causing the wrongful death then murder is still the center of the civil trial, the defendant just isn't charged with murder and can't go to jail. If you don't talk about the murder then how can you even present or defend the case?

Bob Baker, O.J. Simpson's civil trial lead attorney even knows that the topic of murder was part of the trial. This from his opening statements:

"Mr. Simpson
would not, could not ever kill Nicole and leave her body where his
children would find the horror of her in a pool of blood."

"Mr. Simpson did not, could not kill anyone."

"And when this case is all done, and it's all finished, I'm confident
you'll conclude my client is no murderer."

This from the mouth of Simpson's attorney ... now you wanna kick back and tell me that murder wasn't part of the civil trial? :rolleyes:

I follow the civil trial rules as does everyone else that is involved in civil trials.
The reason there are rules is to prevent people from making up stuff that they think civil trials are about.

The court did not ask the jury to find oj guilty of murder and they did not find him guilty of murder.
Maby they knew what they were doing and you thought they should have said something else.

MY Nic IS MARTIN II not DUDE.

[martin II]

Martin,

Also, Kato saw that both gates were closed into the alley way. One was broken and had to moved, there was no evidence that the gate was moved.
Also, it makes no sense that Simpson would not have had a reaction when Kato told him about the noise. IMO, if Simpson was the killer, had to know by then he dropped the glove, why not walk into the alley way, grab the glove or to give himself a reason to be in that alley way.

Correct
thats all he had to do. Walk to the alley pick up the glove, come out and tell kato no one was there. kato would have forgotten the whole affair.But oj was in his house when Kato heard the noise which is why he didn't care what was in the alley.

[martin II]

Of course it was about murder -- a bloody, heartless slaughter. For those who think Simpson is a hero or is a symbol of righting wrongs done to the black community by LE it's all they have. They have to mince words, nitpick legal terminology and use their imaginations to find an explanation, however unrealistic and unreasonable, to blame ANYONE else for the murders and EVERYONE of conspiring against their guy. Remember, these are the people that claim, without one shred of proof, that evidence was planted and that it's possible Jason Simpson did it. It boggles the mind.

You think the civil trial jury made a mistake by not finding oj guilty of murder?

[martin II]

LOl, dude read what I wrote. It doesn't matter that the civil trial can't charge someone with murder but when somebody has been murdered and there's a civil trial accusing somebody for causing the wrongful death then murder is still the center of the civil trial, the defendant just isn't charged with murder and can't go to jail. If you don't talk about the murder then how can you even present or defend the case?

Bob Baker, O.J. Simpson's civil trial lead attorney even knows that the topic of murder was part of the trial. This from his opening statements:

"Mr. Simpson
would not, could not ever kill Nicole and leave her body where his
children would find the horror of her in a pool of blood."

"Mr. Simpson did not, could not kill anyone."

"And when this case is all done, and it's all finished, I'm confident
you'll conclude my client is no murderer."

This from the mouth of Simpson's attorney ... now you wanna kick back and tell me that murder wasn't part of the civil trial? :rolleyes:


Your post did not say anything about murder as a verdict.So i have no idea why you posted that.

[William Anthony]

LOl, dude read what I wrote. It doesn't matter that the civil trial can't charge someone with murder but when somebody has been murdered and there's a civil trial accusing somebody for causing the wrongful death then murder is still the center of the civil trial, the defendant just isn't charged with murder and can't go to jail. If you don't talk about the murder then how can you even present or defend the case?

Bob Baker, O.J. Simpson's civil trial lead attorney even knows that the topic of murder was part of the trial. This from his opening statements:

"Mr. Simpson
would not, could not ever kill Nicole and leave her body where his
children would find the horror of her in a pool of blood."

"Mr. Simpson did not, could not kill anyone."

"And when this case is all done, and it's all finished, I'm confident
you'll conclude my client is no murderer."

This from the mouth of Simpson's attorney ... now you wanna kick back and tell me that murder wasn't part of the civil trial? :rolleyes:

I think attorney Baker was smart enough to realize that he was in a socio political production, when the judge remarked, " Basically, this is a civil murder trial. Attorney Baker realized that he had to defend his client against a non existent animal. Lawyer Baker would have asked the judge for a mistrial, objected sternly to the judge's comments, ask the judge to recuse himself. We have never said that the socio political trial was not about murder, only that a proper civil trial is not about murder. What the socio political trial should have been about as evidenced by the verdict interrogatories was wrongful death, oppression and battery. I hope you understand what we are saying.

[The Boys]

I think attorney Baker was smart enough to realize that he was in a socio political production, when the judge remarked, " Basically, this is a civil murder trial. Attorney Baker realized that he had to defend his client against a non existent animal. Lawyer Baker would have asked the judge for a mistrial, objected sternly to the judge's comments, ask the judge to recuse himself. We have never said that the socio political trial was not about murder, only that a proper civil trial is not about murder. What the socio political trial should have been about as evidenced by the verdict interrogatories was wrongful death, oppression and battery. I hope you understand what we are saying.

I obviously understand but martin obviously doesn't because he asks why I'm bringing up murder if that wasn't a verdict option after i already said I know that murder wasn't a verdict option. My point isn't whether he's being found guilty of murder my point is that the topic of murder itself was a huge part of that trial given how Goldman died. No one claimed Simpson caused the wrongful death by finding Goldman alive and then leaving him to bleed to death or whatever, they're claiming Simpson murdered him causing the wrongful death.

And by the way, Baker isn't afraid to ask for a mistrial - he did ask for one in the civil trial, only the reason he asked had nothing to do with what kind of trial it was.

[William Anthony]

Of course it was about murder -- a bloody, heartless slaughter. For those who think Simpson is a hero or is a symbol of righting wrongs done to the black community by LE it's all they have. They have to mince words, nitpick legal terminology and use their imaginations to find an explanation, however unrealistic and unreasonable, to blame ANYONE else for the murders and EVERYONE of conspiring against their guy. Remember, these are the people that claim, without one shred of proof, that evidence was planted and that it's possible Jason Simpson did it. It boggles the mind.

As mind boggling as it may be, since no one was found guilty and Simpson was found not guilty, he alone can never be found guilty, which means anyone else can. I will speak for myself and others I have read on this forum and say that I have never heard Simpson mentioned as a hero. He is not a symbol of righting wrongs done to the Black race (comments such as this belong on the race thread). However, his trial is a symbol, indicating that a Black man of some status could get the judicial treatment theretofore reserved for Caucasian males of some status. That "legal nitpicking" is what makes America great as the courts are the last guardian of that great promise set forth in the Constitution, "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "

[William Anthony]

I obviously understand but martin obviously doesn't because he asks why I'm bringing up murder if that wasn't a verdict option after i already said I know that murder wasn't a verdict option. My point isn't whether he's being found guilty of murder my point is that the topic of murder itself was a huge part of that trial given how Goldman died. No one claimed Simpson caused the wrongful death by finding Goldman alive and then leaving him to bleed to death or whatever, they're claiming Simpson murdered him causing the wrongful death.

And by the way, Baker isn't afraid to ask for a mistrial - he did ask for one in the civil trial, only the reason he asked had nothing to do with what kind of trial it was.

I do not know if you are privy to the questions asked of the jury. However, the jury was not asked did Simpson kill anyone or stab or cut anyone. If you are correct in your statement and I do believe you are in this case that the trial was about the non-existent animal of civil murder, then I am convinced the trial was a socio political production staged to do what the criminal trial could not, find Simpson guilty of murder.

Now, you understand why I choose to refer to him as attorney Baker and not lawyer Baker.

[Hotwater]

The Moderator will not give more than one warning regarding problem behavior.
The Moderator will determine member timeouts based on lack of civility, which includes:
· Rudeness to others
· Foul language
· Failure to follow the guidelines of discussion
· Repeated bashing of each other -- everyone's entitled to their opinion. Please find a way to be respectful even if you don't agree.


A TIMEOUT IS A BAN OF ANYWHERE FROM 3-10 DAY'S TBD BY THE MODERATOR. REPEAT OFFENDERS RISK BEING PERMANENTLY BANNED!

[fgump2]

Furhman was a seasoned cop. testified many times in court. what pressure was he under?

Furhman spoke of what he was thinking. Sounds like another excuse you are offering.hahaha

if the issue is about furhman saying them why are you talking about something oj said.

Anyone being questioned under oath may feel pressure, especially if the questioner has an obvious motive to make them look bad. Fuhrman may have heard that the defense was going to make an issue out of him.

I wrote about what Simpson said because he was the center of the trial, and I don't think it is fair to go over what Fuhrman said with a microscope or magnifying glass trying to find problems with it unless we do it for others involved in the trial - that would include Simpson most of all; and of course his lawyers, including Dersh- whatever his name was. He is a Harvard law school prof. Do we have lower standards for law school profs?

[fgump2]

I do not know if you are privy to the questions asked of the jury. However, the jury was not asked did Simpson kill anyone or stab or cut anyone. If you are correct in your statement and I do believe you are in this case that the trial was about the non-existent animal of civil murder, then I am convinced the trial was a socio political production staged to do what the criminal trial could not, find Simpson guilty of murder.

Now, you understand why I choose to refer to him as attorney Baker and not lawyer Baker.

There have been other civil trials which were basically about murder, even if that word didn't appear in the official transcrips. Ann Rule wrote a book which describes a civil trial about murder (about wrongful death which was murder). This trial brought testimony together which later led to a murder conviction. The title of the book was "Dead by Sunset" (I think). I could probably get more details on it for you. Was that a socio political production also?

[tv]

fg2, if there was a socio-political production it was the perjury charge against Mark Fuhrman. His lie was not about a material matter in the case.

Perjury (also called forswearing) is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a crime because the witness has sworn to tell the truth and, for the credibility of the court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law provides for a prison sentence of up to five years, and is found at 18 U.S.C. § 1621. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

http://www.uslaw.com/us_law_dictionary/p/Perjury

[William Anthony]

There have been other civil trials which were basically about murder, even if that word didn't appear in the official transcrips. Ann Rule wrote a book which describes a civil trial about murder (about wrongful death which was murder). This trial brought testimony together which later led to a murder conviction. The title of the book was "Dead by Sunset" (I think). I could probably get more details on it for you. Was that a socio political production also?

I do not deny that there were other socio political productions. We have posted the reasons for civil and criminal trials and, because those lines of distinction are blurred is exactly why I call them socio political productions.

[William Anthony]

fg2, if there was a socio-political production it was the perjury charge against Mark Fuhrman. His lie was not about a material matter in the case.

Perjury (also called forswearing) is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a crime because the witness has sworn to tell the truth and, for the credibility of the court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law provides for a prison sentence of up to five years, and is found at 18 U.S.C. § 1621. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

http://www.uslaw.com/us_law_dictionary/p/Perjury

Thank you for reinforcing what I said because that is it exactly, as I explained that in order for evidence, MF's testimony, to be admitted it must be relevant and materiality is an element of relevance under the rules of evidence. Thus, the evidence was admitted and MF lied under oath and a court of law found him guilty of perjury, meaning he lied under oath in a court of law about a material matter. Thanks, again.

[William Anthony]

March 15th-MF

"Q: WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LANGUAGE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU BY MS. BELL IN THAT DECLARATION?

A: YES.

Q: WAS ANY OF THAT LANGUAGE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE QUESTIONS PUT TO YOU BY COUNSEL?

A: THEY DID NOT USE THAT LANGUAGE, NO.

Q: WELL, WHAT LANGUAGE DID THEY USE INSTEAD TO HELP YOU WITH THE BELL PROBLEM?

A: THEY USED THE TERM RACIAL SLURS.

Q: OKAY. WELL, NOW DO YOU HAVE ANY MEMORY OF EVEN ONE OF THESE TEN QUESTIONS?

A: NO.

Q: NOT A SINGLE ONE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: AND THIS HAPPENED WHEN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO.

Q: TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO?

A: YES.

Q: WELL, NOW YOU HAVE BEEN EXHIBITING A STARTLING MEMORY FOR DETAIL OF A CRIME THAT WAS EIGHT MONTHS AGO, HAVE YOU NOT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID ANY OF THE QUESTIONS REQUIRE YOU TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT LANGUAGE OF THAT SORT WAS A PART OF YOUR VOCABULARY?

A: I MIGHT HAVE OFFERED THAT.

Q: AH. TELL US, PLEASE, WHAT IT WAS YOU OFFERED THESE LAWYERS IN THAT ROOM ABOUT YOUR VOCABULARY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT. WITHDRAWN.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WOULD YOU ANSWER?

A: YES. THAT I DON'T USE ANY TYPE OF LANGUAGE TO DESCRIBE PEOPLE OF ANY RACE SUCH AS WHAT IS ALLEGED BY KATHLEEN BELL.

Q: AND YOU NEVER HAVE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IS THAT RIGHT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THAT QUESTION IS IRRELEVANT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU SAY TO THE LAWYERS WHO WERE TRYING TO PREPARE YOU FOR THE BELL PROBLEM THAT YOU NEVER, NEVER USE THAT LANGUAGE?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: I WASN'T ASKED, SIR.

MR. BAILEY: WITHDRAWN. I WILL BE MORE SPECIFIC.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU TELL THE LAWYERS IN THAT ROOM THAT YOU NEVER USED THE WORD "N****R"?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT WAS NEVER ASKED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: I'M ASKING, DO YOU?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT IS VAGUE. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU USE THE WORD "N****R" IN DESCRIBING PEOPLE?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: PRESENTLY?

MR. BAILEY: YES.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, SIR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HAVE YOU USED THAT WORD IN THE PAST TEN YEARS?

A: NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.

Q: YOU MEAN IF YOU CALLED SOMEONE A N****R YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN IT?

A: I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION THE WAY YOU PHRASED IT, SIR.

Q: YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION?

A: YES.

Q: I WILL REPHRASE IT. I WANT YOU TO ASSUME THAT PERHAPS AT SOME TIME, SINCE 1985 OR 6, YOU ADDRESSED A MEMBER OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN RACE AS A N****R. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT ACT ON YOUR PART?

A: NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Q: ARE YOU THEREFORE SAYING THAT YOU HAVE NOT USED THAT WORD IN THE PAST TEN YEARS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: YES, THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

Q: AND YOU SAY UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY BLACK PERSON AS A ****** OR SPOKEN ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE AS ******S IN THE PAST TEN YEARS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, SIR. "

[tv]

Mark Fuhrman's lie was not a lie about a material matter in the OJ Simpson murder trial. He did not lie about anything regarding the investigation. His lie would have to be related to whether or not Simpson was guilty and it wasn't. Not every lie told under oath meets the criteria of perjury.

[William Anthony]

http://walraven.org/simpson/fhr_tps2.html

I hope that all the racial slurs are deleted or altered but let this serve a a warning that they may not be. I chose to quote one section of Judge Ito's ruling as it deals with relevance. I try to post information that is as accurate as possible.

A defendant in a criminal matter is entitled to confront and cross-examine the witnesses called against him. This is a right guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as article I, section 15 of the California Constitution. Evidence Code Section 780 provides that in determining the credibility of a witness, the jury may consider "...any matter that has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his testimony at the hearing, including but not limited to any of the following: ... (f) The existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest or the motive." The California case law requires trial courts to allow cross examination about bias against racial groups and that undue restriction upon the right of effective cross-examination is reversible error per se. In re Anthony P. (1985) 167 CA3d 502, 507, 513. This is not to say, however, that the trial court lacks the authority or is absolved from the duty to appropriately control the inquiry into a witness' racial bias. Where the cross-examination relates to impeachment evidence, as is the situation in the case, it is the duty of the trial court to make certain the jury has sufficient information to appraise the biases and motivations of the witness. Chipman v. Mercer (9th Cir. 1980) 628 F2d 528, 530. Similarly the appellate courts have wisely noted that the trial court retains discretion to exclude collateral facts offered for impeachment purposes. People v. Lawergne (1971) 4 C3d 735, 743; People v. Atchley (1959) 53 C2d 160, 172. It is also important to note the unique factual situation wherein Fuhrman, Nicole Brown Simpson and the defendant cross paths in 1985, 1989 and finally in 1994.

On the cross-examination the defense was allowed to question Fuhrman as to his biases against African Americans. (5) The defendant now seeks to offer to the jury extrinsic evidence of Fuhrman's racial bias in the form of 41 statements made by Fuhrman to McKinny wherein Fuhrman uses the racial epithet "n****r” in apparent disparaging reference to African Americans. The court has reviewed each of the 41 uses of the racial epithet in question either by reference to the transcript(s), audio tapes or both. The court finds that each involves Fuhrman's use of the subject racial epithet in a disparaging manner within the time frame posed by the cross examination and in contradiction to his testimony before the jury. It is therefore relevant and admissible as impeachment.

[William Anthony]

I realize that some may not understand that a witness' credibility is always a material matter in a trial.

[GreenIce]

I realize that some may not understand that a witness' credibility is always a material matter in a trial.

William,

IMO, MF did not play that big of a role in the verdict because I think he took himself out of it. Why he lied, is really an issue I think the jurors needed to debate. I also believe had MF did the truth and say when he was working the gangs, he did use the word, I don't think the jurors would have held that against him. At least that is what I got from their book.

The problem was Vanatter and different versions of key events he gave vs MF. His carrying the blood, sending MF back to Bundy to look at the glove, the admonishment he got from Judge Ito. I think it was obvious that VA believed Simpson was guilty, he was stuck with MF and his actions were done to protect the case against a man he believed was guilty.

And you are right, every witnesses' credibility is fair game and every witnesses' credibility is tested. MF and VA failed horrifically. I think VA played a much larger role in the aquittal then he has been given credit for.

IMO.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You can't have it both ways regarding Kato. You can't have being a Simpson supporter and a friend of Arnelle therefore he was slanting his testimony to favor Simpson. Kato had plenty of opportunities to keep his mouth shut or to throw the police off to a different direction.

The only question I have about Kato is that he claimed there was no book deal when the author of the book said that there was one. Clark opted not to impeach him on this.

Thank you for the advice on the link. I really can't read it.

Neither Arnelle or Kato had a reason to lie, however, in all fairness to them, after being woken up by the police and knowing something terrible has happened, I am sure honest mistakes could have been made by both of them.

However, the police are not entitled to those same mistakes.

What I find puzzling is how many times these three detectives told and gave the exact same reason why they weren't aware of certain information as well as only hearing part of conversation.

In Ron Phillips testimony, he has himself asking Arnelle direct questions but doesn't recall all of her answers because the two other detectives jumped in. So Phillips, being a detective is asking her questions but she totally disrespects him by not answering them? And then gets even by not listening to her responses to the other detectives questions?

Sorry Mr. August, listening is a job requirement is a very important part of being a detective.

Techincally, and door that is not on the front of the house can be called a "back door". Phillips testified that they did not enter the rear door, it appeared to be something like a side door.

Neither Fuhrman nor Vanatter and Lange every accuse Arnelle of anything. In fact in VA an Lange's book, they say she full cooperated with them and never appeared to be evasive or to get in the way in their investigation.

It is not to their benefit to paint Arnelle or any of her actions to be sinister support of her father. How many detectives or which door they entered has no bearing on the evidence. None of this helps her father.

Also there is no link that Arnelle ever talked to her father after the murders and before the detectives arrived. She was not prepared for police, if she was involved or if she was told to wash some clothes at night, I am pretty sure she would have been suspicious and I highly doubt that cops would not have noticed that.

There is nothing in her demeanor to suggest she was involved with the clean up.

The link I posted is to a JPEG Image and is a valid link. If you’re having a problem with it then I guess you can use that as an excuse to continue saying the detectives lied about this despite the fact that Kato Kaelin corroborates their testimony. The fact is that Arnelle Simpson lied regarding this issue, not the four detectives and not Kato Kaelin.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It is not surprising that later evidence pointed to Simpson when one considers the staged exparte prosecution video made to explain away the missing blood, IMHO. You refusal to acknowledge the evidence, I could say, makes you unreasonably conclude there was no reasonable doubt but I am following the moderator's instructions and remaining respectful, so I will not say that.

Yes a reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence that it was Simpson who was behind Kaelin’s room that night and it was Simpson who dropped the glove there. A reasonable inference based on noises and vibrations Kaelin heard and felt and from the fact that both Kaelin and Simpson were first seen outside on the estate that night at the same time only minutes after those noises and vibrations occurred. A reasonable inference based on the blood and fiber evidence found on that glove.

The video the prosecution played of a witness who was legally unavailable to testify in court clearly showed that the nurse didn’t know how much blood he drew from Simpson since he never measured it and he never does. The fact is that if there is no documentation as to exactly how much blood was actually drawn there is no way to know if any of that blood was missing. And that video had nothing to do with a crime scene photograph that documented blood (later found to be Simpson’s blood) on the rear gate the morning after the murders before Simpson had returned to LA.

Fuhrman’s testimony is not evidence that there were two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet, its evidence of an attorney trying to trick a witness into saying something that was not true by asking improper deceiving questions. The witness clearly said he did not have a slip of the tongue when he said the word “them” because he was referring to a knit hat and a glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet; the same evidence that he and other witnesses previously testified to seeing.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

I realize that some may not understand that a witness' credibility is always a material matter in a trial.

William,

IMO, the problem with most G's is just because they disagree with the judge's ruling, that it was a material matter, doesn't mean that it wasn't. What is also extremely frustrating is that MF knew this was going to be issue and choose to play games and torment the DA's rather then man up. MF had no excuses for his behavior on the stand. He has no excuses for not coming clean even after the tapes.

[William Anthony]

Yes a reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence that it was Simpson who was behind Kaelin’s room that night and it was Simpson who dropped the glove there. (How do you draw a reasonable inference that Simpson was back there when MF found no evidence of anyone being back there before him?) A reasonable inference based on noises and vibrations Kaelin heard and felt and from the fact that both Kaelin and Simpson were first seen outside on the estate that night at the same time only minutes after those noises and vibrations occurred. (They both exited their quarters and where outside at or near the time something or someone made a noise is the only inference reasonable to be drawn, IMHO. A reasonable inference based on the blood and fiber evidence found on that glove.(The question is how did that evidence get there, when there was no evidence that Simpson was back there and only evidence that he was outside his home, not behind Kato's quarters.)

The video the prosecution played of a witness who was legally unavailable to testify in court clearly showed that the nurse didn’t know how much blood he drew from Simpson since he never measured it and he never does. (The staged exparte production was a despicable and feeble attempt by the prosecution to impeach its own witness. The fact is that if there is no documentation as to exactly how much blood was actually drawn there is no way to know if any of that blood was missing. (There was documentation in the form of the nurse's testimony before the staged exparte video.And that video had nothing to do with a crime scene photograph that documented blood (later found to be Simpson’s blood) on the rear gate the morning after the murders before Simpson had returned to LA. (No, you don't mean that blood stain that was alleged to have been Simpson but proven it must have come from a dead man.

Fuhrman’s testimony is not evidence that there were two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet, its evidence of an attorney trying to trick a witness into saying something that was not true by asking improper deceiving questions. The witness clearly said he did not have a slip of the tongue when he said the word “them” because he was referring to a knit hat and a glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet; the same evidence that he and other witnesses previously testified to seeing.

bobaugust

No, attotney made the slip of, non slip of, forked-tongue, MF admit to seeing two gloves at Bundy, IMHO, but a lawyer caught MF's slip of, non slip of his forked-tongue, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, MF did not play that big of a role in the verdict because I think he took himself out of it. Why he lied, is really an issue I think the jurors needed to debate. I also believe had MF did the truth and say when he was working the gangs, he did use the word, I don't think the jurors would have held that against him. At least that is what I got from their book.

The problem was Vanatter and different versions of key events he gave vs MF. His carrying the blood, sending MF back to Bundy to look at the glove, the admonishment he got from Judge Ito. I think it was obvious that VA believed Simpson was guilty, he was stuck with MF and his actions were done to protect the case against a man he believed was guilty.

And you are right, every witnesses' credibility is fair game and every witnesses' credibility is tested. MF and VA failed horrifically. I think VA played a much larger role in the aquittal then he has been given credit for.

IMO.

GreenIce,

I do apologize as I did not intend to minimize anyone's role in that dismal failure of a prosecution.

[martin II]

Mark Fuhrman's lie was not a lie about a material matter in the OJ Simpson murder trial. He did not lie about anything regarding the investigation. His lie would have to be related to whether or not Simpson was guilty and it wasn't. Not every lie told under oath meets the criteria of perjury.

So why was he found guilty of perjury in a court of law?

[martin II]

Mark Fuhrman's lie was not a lie about a material matter in the OJ Simpson murder trial. He did not lie about anything regarding the investigation. His lie would have to be related to whether or not Simpson was guilty and it wasn't. Not every lie told under oath meets the criteria of perjury.

The judge ruled that it was.

[martin II]

There have been other civil trials which were basically about murder, even if that word didn't appear in the official transcrips. Ann Rule wrote a book which describes a civil trial about murder (about wrongful death which was murder). This trial brought testimony together which later led to a murder conviction. The title of the book was "Dead by Sunset" (I think). I could probably get more details on it for you. Was that a socio political production also?

How can a civil trial be about murder if the judges instruction do not say so, the jury form does not list it as a option for the verdict and the jury does not
issue a verdict with the word murder in it. Only in the minds of some that believe they can dictate what they believe the trial should have been about.

[martin II]

There have been other civil trials which were basically about murder, even if that word didn't appear in the official transcrips. Ann Rule wrote a book which describes a civil trial about murder (about wrongful death which was murder). This trial brought testimony together which later led to a murder conviction. The title of the book was "Dead by Sunset" (I think). I could probably get more details on it for you. Was that a socio political production also?

If all that you have posted on the issue is true then you can just post a link to those trials so all can understand what you mean.

[martin II]

Anyone being questioned under oath may feel pressure, especially if the questioner has an obvious motive to make them look bad. Fuhrman may have heard that the defense was going to make an issue out of him.

I wrote about what Simpson said because he was the center of the trial, and I don't think it is fair to go over what Fuhrman said with a microscope or magnifying glass trying to find problems with it unless we do it for others involved in the trial - that would include Simpson most of all; and of course his lawyers, including Dersh- whatever his name was. He is a Harvard law school prof. Do we have lower standards for law school profs?

I think you are trying to say a deterctive was under pressurte because he was testifying and his lies should be excused because he was "under pressure."

Should we give a pass to all witnesses under pressure or does that helping hand only go to detectives only?

Furhman made himself the center of the trial and nothing vanhatter and lang could do prevented him from becomming the center.

[martin II]

Of course it was about murder -- a bloody, heartless slaughter. For those who think Simpson is a hero or is a symbol of righting wrongs done to the black community by LE it's all they have. They have to mince words, nitpick legal terminology and use their imaginations to find an explanation, however unrealistic and unreasonable, to blame ANYONE else for the murders and EVERYONE of conspiring against their guy. Remember, these are the people that claim, without one shred of proof, that evidence was planted and that it's possible Jason Simpson did it. It boggles the mind.

You think the civil court and the jury was mincing words? Thats a novel approach.Not true but novel.

[martin II]

The link I posted is to a JPEG Image and is a valid link. If you’re having a problem with it then I guess you can use that as an excuse to continue saying the detectives lied about this despite the fact that Kato Kaelin corroborates their testimony. The fact is that Arnelle Simpson lied regarding this issue, not the four detectives and not Kato Kaelin.

bobaugust

i think you know kato did not say what door he entered.

[fgump2]

I think you are trying to say a deterctive was under pressurte because he was testifying and his lies should be excused because he was "under pressure."

Should we give a pass to all witnesses under pressure or does that helping hand only go to detectives only?

Furhman made himself the center of the trial and nothing vanhatter and lang could do prevented him from becomming the center.

I didn't mean that we give a free pass to everyone; but to think that Fuhrman was referring to a second glove by "them" is not worth talking about. Especially when people ignore some of the things SImpson said. I couldn't imagine anyone who doesn't isn't attached to a "not guilty" outcome paying much attention to this.

[martin II]

Martin,

Also, Kato saw that both gates were closed into the alley way. One was broken and had to moved, there was no evidence that the gate was moved.
Also, it makes no sense that Simpson would not have had a reaction when Kato told him about the noise. IMO, if Simpson was the killer, had to know by then he dropped the glove, why not walk into the alley way, grab the glove or to give himself a reason to be in that alley way.

The prosecution forgot about the gates. No one walked through the walkway because the gates were still in place as they had always been. Kato testified to this.It is my belief that someone walked to the first gate and tossed the glove to the spot where it was found.:cool:

[martin II]

I didn't mean that we give a free pass to everyone; but to think that Fuhrman was referring to a second glove by "them" is not worth talking about. Especially when people ignore some of the things SImpson said. I couldn't imagine anyone who doesn't isn't attached to a "not guilty" outcome paying much attention to this.

Every word spoken by a person testifying is important. You claim the words spoken by simpson was a lie but words spoken by others are not important because your guy was under pressure. A seasoned cop that testified many many times was under pressure. makes no sense.

[martin II]

Considering that many Gs put forth the idea that not guilty does not mean innocent according to the criminal law i find it odd that these same people have difficulty accepting the law when it dictates that the civil trial law does not allow murder as a charge or verdict.Puting forth the idea that liable means murder is pure nonsense.

[martin II]

I didn't mean that we give a free pass to everyone; but to think that Fuhrman was referring to a second glove by "them" is not worth talking about. Especially when people ignore some of the things SImpson said. I couldn't imagine anyone who doesn't isn't attached to a "not guilty" outcome paying much attention to this.

There are so many instances when prosecutions cross of defense witnesses much time was taken discussing 'TURN' words that could change the meaning of the sentences and testimony. Highlighting furhmans words is not that different. You may think Parks words 'STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK" was meaninless but they had great meaning as it was proof that Park really didn't see Kato walk to the garage area. This had great impact back to the time Kato heard the noise. So i dissagree that 'THEM' was not worth talking about as it showed Furhmans frame of mind about what he saw.imo

[GreenIce]

No, attotney made the slip of, non slip of, forked-tongue, MF admit to seeing two gloves at Bundy, IMHO, but a lawyer caught MF's slip of, non slip of his forked-tongue, IMHO.

William,

IMO, MF was talking about two gloves. I think he used that word and he knew that the defense was going to pick up on this and try to hammer him on the stand about this and was looking forward to it.

However, that does not mean that he actually saw those two gloves together. IMO, it is very possible that MF set this whole thing up just so play with the defense. Or he knew that at least one other person may have saw two gloves there but knew this person would never come forward about it. It appears to me that MF loves to play head games and he loves to dare other members of LE to the truth.

When MF denied using the n-word, he knew that no one in that courtroom believed him and he knew the DA's new he was going to committ perjury and they put him on the stand any way. MF held all the power and he knew it. He also had no reason to believe that there would be any consequences to his actions---the city of LA already proved they were willing to go to bat for him--why else did they make that pay out?

[martin II]

Mark Fuhrman's lie was not a lie about a material matter in the OJ Simpson murder trial. He did not lie about anything regarding the investigation. His lie would have to be related to whether or not Simpson was guilty and it wasn't. Not every lie told under oath meets the criteria of perjury.

Please see post #15339 for information you may not have.

[GreenIce]

The prosecution forgot about the gates. No one walked through the walkway because the gates were still in place as they had always been. Kato testified to this.It is my belief that someone walked to the first gate and tossed the glove to the spot where it was found.:cool:

Martin,

Here is a thought, MF testified that the second gate door, I think he said the second gate door was open. Which means if Kato is telling the truth and MF is telling the truth about the gates, then that does prove someone besides Simpson was in that alley.

I always found it unbelieveable that MF said that when he found the glove and 3 trips he took to it with the other detectives, he claims he was not looking for any evidence that would support or lend support on how the glove got back there.

What if there was evidence that did suggest that someone was back there but it pointed away from Simpson, so this evidence was not collected. IMO, it appears to me that damning evidence in this case was either lost or never collected. Examples, the blood on Nicole's back and leg, the bloody fingerprint on the back gate, etc. I believe there was a lense missing on the glasses and that bloody fingerprint was on it.

Also, it appears to me that the DA's did not want to test certain evidence they did not want to have to turn the results over to the defense. Such as the car keys, the blood on the dog, etc.

Again, just a thought.

[fgump2]

fgump2

you seem to be havimg a problem finding articles on the blue wall of silence so i though i would give you a few. if these are not enough there are many more.

Blue Code of Silence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Blue Code of Silence (or Blue Wall of Silence) is an unwritten rule among many police officers in the United States not to report on another colleague's errors, misconducts or crimes. It is considered to be the worst kind of betrayal if this code is broken.

Ironically, it is similar to the code of silence in organized crime, like the Omertà.

Studies demonstrate that most police feel that the code is applicable in cases of "illegal brutality or bending of the rules in order to protect colleagues from criminal proceedings," but not to illegal actions with an "acquisitive motive."[1][2]

--------------------------

The Blue Wall of Silence, does not have an official existence. This is not a written code. John Diedrich in the Milwaukee Sentinel article titled “Wall of Silence Not Breaking” calls it the ‘unwritten code of silence’. By common reasoning, it is easy to connect the existence of police brutality with the Blue Wall of Silence. Where there is police brutality, the issue of the Blue Wall of Silence coexists. Hence it can be concluded using deductive reasoning that the Blue Wall of Silence exists at all levels of the police. The existence of the Blue Wall of Silence affects the prisoners who face police brutality, as well as the righteous police officers who try to tear down the Blue Wall of Silence.

The case of Frank Jude Jr. merits special attention in this context. Frank Jude Jr., was savagely beaten Oct. 24 by a dozen men who, witnesses said identified themselves as off-duty police officers. This was a case in which the officers’ testimony became crucial. This is a case when the Blue Wall of Silence affects the life of Frank Jude Jr., a victim of police brutality. According to New York Daily News, Barry, a 16-year veteran of the force, contends she was demoted and brought up on disciplinary charges after whistle-blowing on the truancy unit of the Queens South Task Force in 1998. Barry was demoted, assigned to midnight tours and accused of failing to supervise her unit. She was further labeled by other cops as a ‘rat’."Cops will tolerate psychos, alcoholics, wife-beaters, dweebs and geeks, but they will not tolerate rats. Period," said Tony Bouza, chief of the Minneapolis Police Department from 1980 to 1988. In this particular case, the Blue Wall of Silence has affected the life of a righteous police officer, Barry.

------------------------

Behind the NYPD's Blue Wall of Silence
NYPD
A City and Its Police
By James Lardner and Thomas Reppetto
Henry Holt -- 368pp -- $27.50




RELATED ITEMS
Behind the NYPD's Blue Wall of Silence

PHOTO: Cover, ``NYPD''


In New York City, like most big American cities, the police force produces more than its share of tabloid fodder. And nothing excites the public like police misdeeds, actual or alleged. Violent crime in the Big Apple is at a 30-year low, but this achievement has been largely overshadowed by the 1997 station-house torture of Haitian Abner Louima and the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed West African immigrant cut down in a hail of police gunfire on the steps of his apartment building. After the four plainclothes cops who shot him were acquitted of murder charges, Bruce Springsteen stoked a furor-within-a-furor merely by performing a new song about Diallo--the as-yet-unrecorded 41 Shots.

-------------------



Blue Wall of Silence 43 up, 4 down
The notion that despite police rules and regulations; a
police officer may not turn in or otherwise provide damaging information in regards to a fellow officer. The term is more for the use of only corrupt police officers and not the police force in general.

The Blue Wall of Silence is prevelant in many cases involving police corruption here in the State of Georgia.


----------------------

Noun 1. blue wall of silence - the secrecy of police officers who lie or look the other way to protect other police officers; "the blue wall cracked when some officers refused to take part in the cover-up"
blue wall, wall of silence
cover-up - concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public
You have some good points there, Dude - oops I mean Martin. You brought some interesting material to my attention. One of the best quotes you found was: Studies demonstrate that most police feel that the code is applicable in cases of "illegal brutality or bending of the rules in order to protect colleagues from criminal proceedings," but not to illegal actions with an "acquisitive motive This quote doesn't put the police in a good light, but it indicates that the blue wall of silence has limits.
I think you should post that on the blue wall of silence thread I started in the Issues in Criminal justice under the sub heading "Theories of crime"
I don't claim to be an expert on the blue wall of silence. I started that thread because I thought the issue is important, not because I have all the answers. I may yet read about the Ramparts Scandal. I thought all along that there is a blue wall of silence, but that it isn't very reliable, especially in a case like this where the accused is a rich and popular celebrity.
I question the reliability of the blue wall of silence in this case for the following reasons:
(1) I think the blue wall of silence give more protection to misdeeds that are impulsive than to misdeeds that are premeditated. Most of the misdeeds I read about that the blue wall of silence protected were impulsive mistakes made out of fear or anger. Since each cop knows he may loose his temper, there is a motive of self protection here.
You gave an example of the blue wall of silence here protecting cops who did things that were premeditated. I don’t know how common that is.
(2) The possibility of making money by blowing the whistle on the framing of a popular celebrity means that the blue wall of silence would be less reliable in the Simpson case. If Fuhrman tampered with evidence to frame Simpson, it is pretty certain that there would be other LAPD employees who would realize that there was something crooked going on, and have a choice: Join the conspiracy and take a chance on prison, or blow the whistle and take a chance on being rich.
(3) Everybody in the LAPD knew that arresting Simpson for murder would create a lot of publicity. All the evidence would be scrutinized by an expensive defense team and by the news media. This scrutiny would guarantee that any weaknesses in the case or the department would be highlighted in the media. The stronger the case against Simpson, the harder the defense would work at putting the LAPD on trial. It was pretty much inevitable that the LAPD would get a lot of bad publicity. Anytime a big organization is getting a lot of bad publicity, everyone in the organization is going to feel some unpleasant heat; especially people who made a mistakes on that case.

[martin II]

William,

IMO, MF was talking about two gloves. I think he used that word and he knew that the defense was going to pick up on this and try to hammer him on the stand about this and was looking forward to it.

However, that does not mean that he actually saw those two gloves together. IMO, it is very possible that MF set this whole thing up just so play with the defense. Or he knew that at least one other person may have saw two gloves there but knew this person would never come forward about it. It appears to me that MF loves to play head games and he loves to dare other members of LE to the truth.

When MF denied using the n-word, he knew that no one in that courtroom believed him and he knew the DA's new he was going to committ perjury and they put him on the stand any way. MF held all the power and he knew it. He also had no reason to believe that there would be any consequences to his actions---the city of LA already proved they were willing to go to bat for him--why else did they make that pay out?

GI

i AGREE

I have wondered if the media knew of the $100,000 pay out and just gave Furhman and the prosecution a pass on that by not making that info public.

[fgump2]

Martin,

Also, Kato saw that both gates were closed into the alley way. One was broken and had to moved, there was no evidence that the gate was moved.
Also, it makes no sense that Simpson would not have had a reaction when Kato told him about the noise. IMO, if Simpson was the killer, had to know by then he dropped the glove, why not walk into the alley way, grab the glove or to give himself a reason to be in that alley way.
You seem to believe that if Simpson dropped the glove he would realize that, and remember where he dropped it. I doubt that. Many people drop things without realizing it. He was in a hurry when he got into the house and quite likely threw things down somewhere without doing an inventory on it. If he did realize two gloves were missing he wouldn't necessarily know where they were. I think he had Arnelle or Randa (his assistant, whatever her name was) clean up afterwards.

[martin II]

You have some good points there, Dude - oops I mean Martin. You brought some interesting material to my attention. One of the best quotes you found was: Studies demonstrate that most police feel that the code is applicable in cases of "illegal brutality or bending of the rules in order to protect colleagues from criminal proceedings," but not to illegal actions with an "acquisitive motive This quote doesn't put the police in a good light, but it indicates that the blue wall of silence has limits.
I think you should post that on the blue wall of silence thread I started in the Issues in Criminal justice under the sub heading "Theories of crime"
I don't claim to be an expert on the blue wall of silence. I started that thread because I thought the issue is important, not because I have all the answers. I may yet read about the Ramparts Scandal. I thought all along that there is a blue wall of silence, but that it isn't very reliable, especially in a case like this where the accused is a rich and popular celebrity.
I question the reliability of the blue wall of silence in this case for the following reasons:
(1) I think the blue wall of silence give more protection to misdeeds that are impulsive than to misdeeds that are premeditated. Most of the misdeeds I read about that the blue wall of silence protected were impulsive mistakes made out of fear or anger. Since each cop knows he may loose his temper, there is a motive of self protection here.
You gave an example of the blue wall of silence here protecting cops who did things that were premeditated. I don’t know how common that is.
(2) The possibility of making money by blowing the whistle on the framing of a popular celebrity means that the blue wall of silence would be less reliable in the Simpson case. If Fuhrman tampered with evidence to frame Simpson, it is pretty certain that there would be other LAPD employees who would realize that there was something crooked going on, and have a choice: Join the conspiracy and take a chance on prison, or blow the whistle and take a chance on being rich.
(3) Everybody in the LAPD knew that arresting Simpson for murder would create a lot of publicity. All the evidence would be scrutinized by an expensive defense team and by the news media. This scrutiny would guarantee that any weaknesses in the case or the department would be highlighted in the media. The stronger the case against Simpson, the harder the defense would work at putting the LAPD on trial. It was pretty much inevitable that the LAPD would get a lot of bad publicity. Anytime a big organization is getting a lot of bad publicity, everyone in the organization is going to feel some unpleasant heat; especially people who made a mistakes on that case.

Not really

Example: in the commissions i posted there is ample evidence of cops stealing
drugs and money from drug dealers and then selling the drugs to other drug dealers for profit and the partners of these bad cops remaining silent. That when some cops have been brought on charges for shooting or abusing citizens that their partners give false testimony in court to protect the bad cops.That many tiomes this false teastimony allows a guilty cop to go free. Period.

That there was systematic wrong doing by some cops and others cops when questioned by internal affairs woulld give false testimony to protect their bad cop partners.
If you are interested in educating yourself on the issue you can find much information in these reports that will change you ideas that the BWS is not realiable and that it is not spure of the moment actions.Or you can continue to post what you think and ignore the facts of the issue. imo:cool:

[tv]

You seem to believe that if Simpson dropped the glove he would realize that, and remember where he dropped it. I doubt that. Many people drop things without realizing it. He was in a hurry when he got into the house and quite likely threw things down somewhere without doing an inventory on it. If he did realize two gloves were missing he wouldn't necessarily know where they were. I think he had Arnelle or Randa (his assistant, whatever her name was) clean up afterwards.

Arnelle and Cathy Randa are the most logical candidates for the clean up but my vote is on Arnelle. She's the one that told the obvious lie about taking the detectives in the front door. That's why she fell apart when she found out that Nicole had been murdered -- not out of grief for Nicole but because she put two and two together about her father's request to wash the sweats and realized that he had killed Nicole. All my own informed opinion of course. :)

[martin II]

You have some good points there, Dude - oops I mean Martin. You brought some interesting material to my attention. One of the best quotes you found was: Studies demonstrate that most police feel that the code is applicable in cases of "illegal brutality or bending of the rules in order to protect colleagues from criminal proceedings," but not to illegal actions with an "acquisitive motive This quote doesn't put the police in a good light, but it indicates that the blue wall of silence has limits.
I think you should post that on the blue wall of silence thread I started in the Issues in Criminal justice under the sub heading "Theories of crime"
I don't claim to be an expert on the blue wall of silence. I started that thread because I thought the issue is important, not because I have all the answers. I may yet read about the Ramparts Scandal. I thought all along that there is a blue wall of silence, but that it isn't very reliable, especially in a case like this where the accused is a rich and popular celebrity.
I question the reliability of the blue wall of silence in this case for the following reasons:
(1) I think the blue wall of silence give more protection to misdeeds that are impulsive than to misdeeds that are premeditated. Most of the misdeeds I read about that the blue wall of silence protected were impulsive mistakes made out of fear or anger. Since each cop knows he may loose his temper, there is a motive of self protection here.
You gave an example of the blue wall of silence here protecting cops who did things that were premeditated. I don’t know how common that is.
(2) The possibility of making money by blowing the whistle on the framing of a popular celebrity means that the blue wall of silence would be less reliable in the Simpson case. If Fuhrman tampered with evidence to frame Simpson, it is pretty certain that there would be other LAPD employees who would realize that there was something crooked going on, and have a choice: Join the conspiracy and take a chance on prison, or blow the whistle and take a chance on being rich.
(3) Everybody in the LAPD knew that arresting Simpson for murder would create a lot of publicity. All the evidence would be scrutinized by an expensive defense team and by the news media. This scrutiny would guarantee that any weaknesses in the case or the department would be highlighted in the media. The stronger the case against Simpson, the harder the defense would work at putting the LAPD on trial. It was pretty much inevitable that the LAPD would get a lot of bad publicity. Anytime a big organization is getting a lot of bad publicity, everyone in the organization is going to feel some unpleasant heat; especially people who made a mistakes on that case.

The cops in the reports i gave you did none of what you think cops would. in your 2 abd 3 above
They remained silent until the reports exposed them.So you can tell yourself various excusses to try to debunk the BWS but that would be a mistake if you are interested in the truth. or not evading it.imo:hat:

[martin II]

fgump2

So you think a cop stealing 1 million dollare from the police evidence room is not premeditated?

"that are impulsive than to misdeeds that are premeditated"

[William Anthony]

Arnelle and Cathy Randa are the most logical candidates for the clean up but my vote is on Arnelle. She's the one that told the obvious lie about taking the detectives in the front door. That's why she fell apart when she found out that Nicole had been murdered -- not out of grief for Nicole but because she put two and two together about her father's request to wash the sweats and realized that he had killed Nicole. All my own informed opinion of course. :)

I respectfully need to disagree with your opinion, although I respect your right to have one. I think there needs to be some evidence, according to the rules, wen you bash someone to support your bashing, which I think saying someone may be involved in criminal activity is bashing. Please, explain how you formed the opinion by the evidence that Ms. Randa and or the beautiful Ms. Arnelle could have been involved in criminal activity by your "own informed opinion" and please be as detailed as possible, as it may allow me or others to agree? What seems to be missing is the how.

[martin II]

Arnelle and Cathy Randa are the most logical candidates for the clean up but my vote is on Arnelle. She's the one that told the obvious lie about taking the detectives in the front door. That's why she fell apart when she found out that Nicole had been murdered -- not out of grief for Nicole but because she put two and two together about her father's request to wash the sweats and realized that he had killed Nicole. All my own informed opinion of course. :)

I have not read testimony by any one that would give any reasonable person the opinion that ms Arnell had anything but love for Nicole.Lang thought she suffered serious grief in front of him. Arnell seems to be a target for some but she is a family member and is ot for bashing.please check the rules before continuing to bash her.

[William Anthony]

I have not read testimony by any one that would give any reasonable person the opinion that ms Arnell had anything but love for Nicole.Lang thought she suffered serious grief in front of him. Arnell seems to be a target for some but she is a family member and is ot for bashing.please check the rules before continuing to bash her.

Martin,

I just did a quick word search for sweat and washing and could not find anything in DF's testimony about a sweatsuit in a washing machine. I may have missed it. Who testified about a sweatsuit in a washing machine, if you can recall? In fact, I did a quick word search for sweat in the beautiful Ms. Arnelle's testimony and found she was never asked about washing a sweatsuit.

[GreenIce]

You seem to believe that if Simpson dropped the glove he would realize that, and remember where he dropped it. I doubt that. Many people drop things without realizing it. He was in a hurry when he got into the house and quite likely threw things down somewhere without doing an inventory on it. If he did realize two gloves were missing he wouldn't necessarily know where they were. I think he had Arnelle or Randa (his assistant, whatever her name was) clean up afterwards.

fgump2,

There is no evidence that even comes close that Simpson talked to his daughter or Cathy Randa and asked them to do any thing at Rockingham after he left for Chicago.

There is no evidence as validated by the detectives that Arnelle was acting strangely or that she had any prior knowledge that Nicole had been murdered.
In fact, not one single book that was written about the criminal case, to include the lawyers and the cops ever mention any debate about what door was entered. Arnelle fully cooperated with them.

There is a ton of evidence that suggests that the detectives were searching for any reason to justify them going over the wall.

It is clear that the detectives knew that Simpson was not home when they went to Rockingham and it is clear that Simpson was the prime suspect. To suggest other wise, IMO, is silly. However, if you want to insist that they did not know then, they certainly knew it when Kato answered the door and asked them if OJ's plane went down.

Arnelle clearly told the police that she knew her father was not inside house but she did not know exactly where he was but she knew who to call to find this information out. At that point, they should have left the estate and gone back to Bundy. And they all knew it.

It is clear that several times the detectives testified they did not hear certain conversations or don't remember what was told and testified to what they thought they overheard, such as, "isn't in there" and pointed at the house. It is clear they were using Arnelle to get inside the house and that they only way they good protect themselves is by dancing around the truth.

When VA wrote the warrant, the evidence clearly proves that Simpson's trip was planned which was supported by Kato. If the trip was unplanned, then why was a limo waiting for Simpson to take him to the airport?

It is also clear that second search warrant states that they don't know if sweats were even seen at the house but if they come across them, they want to collect them for evidence.

Marcia Clark has the sweats in the upstairs hamper and only MF has them in the washing machine. Lange and Vanatter do not really get into this only that the media had reported that the clothes found in the washing machine had blood on them and they said it later turned out to be rust.

Arnelle had no reason to lie. There is no evidence to suggest that she would involve herself in something like this. If she was involved in this cover up, she would have done a lot more to help her father out.

Arnelle's alleged involvement is purely fiction on the part of Petrocelli and was never supported by the media and in fact, he was called out on this. If Petrocelli had the evidence to support this, then charges should have been brought against Arnelle. Petrocelli backed off after getting his hand "slapped" during his book tour.

Simpson had no reaction to being told about the thumps, only to help Kato try to find a better flashlight and I think the limo driver said that Simpson told Kato to go one way and he would go the other but then realized he had to leave for the airport.

If Kato was still as scared as he said he was, he never called the cops to check it out, he never warned Arnelle when she came home that night.

Also, had Arnelle would have been involved, there is no way she would have taken Sydney and Justin to their grandparents. Simpson never would have allowed any one to talk to the kids before he found out what they saw or heard. He would have had Arnelle gently question the children to see if they knew anything.

There is no evidence to suggest that Cathy Randa or Arnelle were involved.

[William Anthony]

If Simpson called anyone to clean up why not have them clean up the blood spots leading into his foyer from the Bronco and inside the Bronco, if he was the murderer?

[William Anthony]

fgump2,

There is no evidence that even comes close that Simpson talked to his daughter or Cathy Randa and asked them to do any thing at Rockingham after he left for Chicago.

There is no evidence as validated by the detectives that Arnelle was acting strangely or that she had any prior knowledge that Nicole had been murdered.
In fact, not one single book that was written about the criminal case, to include the lawyers and the cops ever mention any debate about what door was entered. Arnelle fully cooperated with them.

There is a ton of evidence that suggests that the detectives were searching for any reason to justify them going over the wall.

It is clear that the detectives knew that Simpson was not home when they went to Rockingham and it is clear that Simpson was the prime suspect. To suggest other wise, IMO, is silly. However, if you want to insist that they did not know then, they certainly knew it when Kato answered the door and asked them if OJ's plane went down.

Arnelle clearly told the police that she knew her father was not inside house but she did not know exactly where he was but she knew who to call to find this information out. At that point, they should have left the estate and gone back to Bundy. And they all knew it.

It is clear that several times the detectives testified they did not hear certain conversations or don't remember what was told and testified to what they thought they overheard, such as, "isn't in there" and pointed at the house. It is clear they were using Arnelle to get inside the house and that they only way they good protect themselves is by dancing around the truth.

When VA wrote the warrant, the evidence clearly proves that Simpson's trip was planned which was supported by Kato. If the trip was unplanned, then why was a limo waiting for Simpson to take him to the airport?

It is also clear that second search warrant states that they don't know if sweats were even seen at the house but if they come across them, they want to collect them for evidence.

Marcia Clark has the sweats in the upstairs hamper and only MF has them in the washing machine. Lange and Vanatter do not really get into this only that the media had reported that the clothes found in the washing machine had blood on them and they said it later turned out to be rust.

Arnelle had no reason to lie. There is no evidence to suggest that she would involve herself in something like this. If she was involved in this cover up, she would have done a lot more to help her father out.

Arnelle's alleged involvement is purely fiction on the part of Petrocelli and was never supported by the media and in fact, he was called out on this. If Petrocelli had the evidence to support this, then charges should have been brought against Arnelle. Petrocelli backed off after getting his hand "slapped" during his book tour.

Simpson had no reaction to being told about the thumps, only to help Kato try to find a better flashlight and I think the limo driver said that Simpson told Kato to go one way and he would go the other but then realized he had to leave for the airport.

If Kato was still as scared as he said he was, he never called the cops to check it out, he never warned Arnelle when she came home that night.

Also, had Arnelle would have been involved, there is no way she would have taken Sydney and Justin to their grandparents. Simpson never would have allowed any one to talk to the kids before he found out what they saw or heard. He would have had Arnelle gently question the children to see if they knew anything.

There is no evidence to suggest that Cathy Randa or Arnelle were involved.

GreenIce,

Thanks for the information on the mysterious sweats.

[martin II]

Martin,

I just did a quick word search for sweat and washing and could not find anything in DF's testimony about a sweatsuit in a washing machine. I may have missed it. Who testified about a sweatsuit in a washing machine, if you can recall? In fact, I did a quick word search for sweat in the beautiful Ms. Arnelle's testimony and found she was never asked about washing a sweatsuit.

I thought it was fung that said he examined some sweats

[William Anthony]

I thought it was fung that said he examined some sweats

Since the beautiful Ms. Arnelle was never asked about washing a sweatsuit, then it is pure conjecture to say that she had any part in any criminal activity related to the murders, IMHO. I will do a word search for the word laundry. Done and there was noting except which room was next to the laundry room that I found.

[martin II]

fgump2,

There is no evidence that even comes close that Simpson talked to his daughter or Cathy Randa and asked them to do any thing at Rockingham after he left for Chicago.

There is no evidence as validated by the detectives that Arnelle was acting strangely or that she had any prior knowledge that Nicole had been murdered.
In fact, not one single book that was written about the criminal case, to include the lawyers and the cops ever mention any debate about what door was entered. Arnelle fully cooperated with them.

There is a ton of evidence that suggests that the detectives were searching for any reason to justify them going over the wall.

It is clear that the detectives knew that Simpson was not home when they went to Rockingham and it is clear that Simpson was the prime suspect. To suggest other wise, IMO, is silly. However, if you want to insist that they did not know then, they certainly knew it when Kato answered the door and asked them if OJ's plane went down.

Arnelle clearly told the police that she knew her father was not inside house but she did not know exactly where he was but she knew who to call to find this information out. At that point, they should have left the estate and gone back to Bundy. And they all knew it.

It is clear that several times the detectives testified they did not hear certain conversations or don't remember what was told and testified to what they thought they overheard, such as, "isn't in there" and pointed at the house. It is clear they were using Arnelle to get inside the house and that they only way they good protect themselves is by dancing around the truth.

When VA wrote the warrant, the evidence clearly proves that Simpson's trip was planned which was supported by Kato. If the trip was unplanned, then why was a limo waiting for Simpson to take him to the airport?

It is also clear that second search warrant states that they don't know if sweats were even seen at the house but if they come across them, they want to collect them for evidence.

Marcia Clark has the sweats in the upstairs hamper and only MF has them in the washing machine. Lange and Vanatter do not really get into this only that the media had reported that the clothes found in the washing machine had blood on them and they said it later turned out to be rust.

Arnelle had no reason to lie. There is no evidence to suggest that she would involve herself in something like this. If she was involved in this cover up, she would have done a lot more to help her father out.

Arnelle's alleged involvement is purely fiction on the part of Petrocelli and was never supported by the media and in fact, he was called out on this. If Petrocelli had the evidence to support this, then charges should have been brought against Arnelle. Petrocelli backed off after getting his hand "slapped" during his book tour.

Simpson had no reaction to being told about the thumps, only to help Kato try to find a better flashlight and I think the limo driver said that Simpson told Kato to go one way and he would go the other but then realized he had to leave for the airport.

If Kato was still as scared as he said he was, he never called the cops to check it out, he never warned Arnelle when she came home that night.

Also, had Arnelle would have been involved, there is no way she would have taken Sydney and Justin to their grandparents. Simpson never would have allowed any one to talk to the kids before he found out what they saw or heard. He would have had Arnelle gently question the children to see if they knew anything.

There is no evidence to suggest that Cathy Randa or Arnelle were involved.


By phone at about 5 am CR confirmed to the detectives that oj was on a trip that had been planned two months in advance.

vanhatter ignored this when he told the search warrant judge that oj had left on a unplanned trip. Another lie

[martin II]

William
I just read the P Hearing
Ms Arnell testified but she was not asked any question about a washing machine. Period.

[martin II]

Arnelle and Cathy Randa are the most logical candidates for the clean up but my vote is on Arnelle. She's the one that told the obvious lie about taking the detectives in the front door. That's why she fell apart when she found out that Nicole had been murdered -- not out of grief for Nicole but because she put two and two together about her father's request to wash the sweats and realized that he had killed Nicole. All my own informed opinion of course. :)

You got one piece of evidence that ms Arnell or CR did any thing wrong?
Just one piece.

[William Anthony]

William
I just read the P Hearing
Ms Arnell testified but she was not asked any question about a washing machine. Period.

It does not appear to be any evidence connecting the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle to any criminal activity related to the murders and, consequently, to continue to accuse her of a crime, albeit via an opinion, constitutes repeated bashing, IMHO.

[martin II]

I did not find any testimony of Ms Arnell in the Grand Jury

[William Anthony]

I did not find any testimony of Ms Arnell in the Grand Jury

I suspect there was none, as the prosecution would put on only enough of its case to get an indictment.

[William Anthony]

July 20th

"MR. DARDEN: Okay. With the exception of the clothes that have to be--that have to go to the cleaners, you wash those other clothes, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: And you're telling us you don't know whether or not he owned black sweatpants?

MS. GUARIN: I did not see any black pants there.

MR. DARDEN: You've never seen any black sweatpants?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Never ever? (What kind of trick question was this or is Darden attempting to play a child's game? Didn't he sound juvenile?)

MS. GUARIN: Never.

MR. DARDEN: Have you ever seen the Defendant wearing black sweats in any video?

MS. GUARIN: No. I never watch the video. Only the frogman video that I watch.

MR. DARDEN: Well, if the Defendant owned black or cotton--strike that--the Defendant owned black sweatpants, you would know about it, wouldn't you?

MS. GUARIN: I did not see him wearing that black sweatpants. So I cannot say that--I saw him. So I don't--

MR. DARDEN: Well, did you ever see any in the closet?

MS. GUARIN: I didn't see--

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: I didn't see anything in his closet.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So you don't know whether he owns any or not?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not the Defendant owns--

MS. GUARIN: I don't recall if he has some or not.

MR. DARDEN: He might have some?

MS. GUARIN: I don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. But the answer will stand, "I don't know." The answer was, "I don't know." So the answer will stand."

[martin II]

July 20th

"MR. DARDEN: Okay. With the exception of the clothes that have to be--that have to go to the cleaners, you wash those other clothes, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: And you're telling us you don't know whether or not he owned black sweatpants?

MS. GUARIN: I did not see any black pants there.

MR. DARDEN: You've never seen any black sweatpants?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Never ever? (What kind of trick question was this or is Darden attempting to play a child's game? Didn't he sound juvenile?)

MS. GUARIN: Never.

MR. DARDEN: Have you ever seen the Defendant wearing black sweats in any video?

MS. GUARIN: No. I never watch the video. Only the frogman video that I watch.

MR. DARDEN: Well, if the Defendant owned black or cotton--strike that--the Defendant owned black sweatpants, you would know about it, wouldn't you?

MS. GUARIN: I did not see him wearing that black sweatpants. So I cannot say that--I saw him. So I don't--

MR. DARDEN: Well, did you ever see any in the closet?

MS. GUARIN: I didn't see--

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: I didn't see anything in his closet.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So you don't know whether he owns any or not?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not the Defendant owns--

MS. GUARIN: I don't recall if he has some or not.

MR. DARDEN: He might have some?

MS. GUARIN: I don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. But the answer will stand, "I don't know." The answer was, "I don't know." So the answer will stand."


One thing is clear. she never saw oj with a sweat suit.

[martin II]

July 20th

"MR. DARDEN: Okay. With the exception of the clothes that have to be--that have to go to the cleaners, you wash those other clothes, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: And you're telling us you don't know whether or not he owned black sweatpants?

MS. GUARIN: I did not see any black pants there.

MR. DARDEN: You've never seen any black sweatpants?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Never ever? (What kind of trick question was this or is Darden attempting to play a child's game? Didn't he sound juvenile?)

MS. GUARIN: Never.

MR. DARDEN: Have you ever seen the Defendant wearing black sweats in any video?

MS. GUARIN: No. I never watch the video. Only the frogman video that I watch.

MR. DARDEN: Well, if the Defendant owned black or cotton--strike that--the Defendant owned black sweatpants, you would know about it, wouldn't you?

MS. GUARIN: I did not see him wearing that black sweatpants. So I cannot say that--I saw him. So I don't--

MR. DARDEN: Well, did you ever see any in the closet?

MS. GUARIN: I didn't see--

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: I didn't see anything in his closet.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So you don't know whether he owns any or not?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not the Defendant owns--

MS. GUARIN: I don't recall if he has some or not.

MR. DARDEN: He might have some?

MS. GUARIN: I don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. But the answer will stand, "I don't know." The answer was, "I don't know." So the answer will stand."

Darden shot a blank there

[William Anthony]

One thing is clear. she never saw oj with a sweat suit.

She never saw a black sweatsuit and what does Darden respond, "never, ever", :);):cool:. That was a question Darden should not have asked as his response made him appear child like to me and was another question for which he did not know the answer.

[martin II]

GI

YOU WERE CORRECT

Two doors on the back of ojs house were nailed shut
The other three doors have no outside locks so it was impossible to enter the house by those doors.The locks for those three were on the inside of the house.

Kato testified that Arnell had her keys in her hands as she led all to the door they entered by.THE FRONT DOOR.


MS. CLARK: Okay. And so that one key would open the front and the rear doors?

MS. SIMPSON: The front door. There aren't any locks on the rear doors. Well, on some of them there are actually.

MS. CLARK: And is it the same key for those locks?

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, to be honest with you, I don't know. I don't believe so.

MS. CLARK: You don't think so?

MS. SIMPSON: No. I didn't have the key. The locks are very high up on the doors in the rear.

MS. CLARK: Hmm. Let me--

MS. CLARK: Can I have a moment?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: So you're talking about the French doors at the rear of the house where it's very high up?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Is there another door that leads into the billiard room that is just a regular door?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MS. CLARK: That you can go in through. Okay. And you had the key to that door?

MS. SIMPSON: There is no--it's only locked from the inside of the house. There's no lock from the outside.

MS. CLARK: You can't open it from the outside?

MS. SIMPSON: No, you can not.

MS. CLARK: Is there another door that leads into the billiard room or actually--you know, there's an area you walk into and the billiard room is to your left?

MS. SIMPSON: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: Okay. That door. Can you open that one from the outside?

MS. SIMPSON: It's in the billiard room you're speaking of?

MS. CLARK: I don't think it's in the billiard room. It's--the billiard room as you walk in would be to your left.

MS. SIMPSON: So towards the TV's?

MS. CLARK: Toward the TV room, correct.

MS. SIMPSON: There's a little--those doors are nailed shut.

MS. CLARK: Okay. What means do you gain entry from the rear of the house when you try--if you were trying to go into the rear of the house, what door would you take?

MS. SIMPSON: You can't. You would have to go around to the front.

MS. CLARK: There's no door that admits you in through the rear of the house?

MS. SIMPSON: No, unless--unless you go through the guest house.

.

[martin II]

She never saw a black sweatsuit and what does Darden respond, "never, ever", :);):cool:. That was a question Darden should not have asked as his response made him appear child like to me and was another question for which he did not know the answer.



Bad habit

[tv]

Were Kato and all four detectives lying when they said they entered through the back door together? They would have no reason to lie about this fact -- it didn't help the case against Simpson to say they went in through the back. Kato would never have been capable of making that kind of sophisticated calculation in the first place, and he would have no reason to. Neither would the cops. Even if you have a jaundiced view of the LAPD and believe there are bad cops who fabricate evidence or concoct incriminating scenarios, it would be nearly impossible to get four police officers to lie about a seemingly minor detail when any one of them could turn on the others and rat them out. At the time it was an innocuous fact.

But that innocuous fact leads to an incriminating conclusion: after Simpson left, someone else was in the house.

The police found a load of wet laundry sitting in Simpson's washing machine, apparently including some of Arnelle's underwear. The housekeeper, Gigi Guarin, hadn't run it. She had been away that weekend and had testified in the criminal trial that she had left Friday with all the laundry dried and folded. In any case, she didn't do Arnelle's wash. When shown a video of the contents of the washing machine while testifying in the criminal trial, Gigi identified the the laundry basket as Arnelle's. Arnelle said she hadn't done any laundry from June 9 through June 12, nor had she been inside the main house, which included the laundry room, since Saturday night. She said she had gotten home Sunday morning and gone straight to bed. Simpson didn't do the laundry, that night or any night.

So, who did this load of laundry? Why was it still in the machine? To what end?

They took their load -- a sweatsuit? towels? -- and ran it through the washing machine, then ran a load behind it as camoflage...

In their haste on the way out, whoever did this clean-up job forgot to reset the system.

(Daniel Petrocelli, Triumph of Justice, excerpts from pages 278 -279)

IMO Arnelle lied -- she lied about the door she took the detectives in and she lied about the laundry. No one else had a reason to lie about either one.

[fgump2]

fgump2

you seem to be havimg a problem finding articles on the blue wall of silence so i though i would give you a few. if these are not enough there are many more.

Blue Code of Silence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Blue Code of Silence (or Blue Wall of Silence) is an unwritten rule among many police officers in the United States not to report on another colleague's errors, misconducts or crimes. It is considered to be the worst kind of betrayal if this code is broken.

Ironically, it is similar to the code of silence in organized crime, like the Omertà.

Studies demonstrate that most police feel that the code is applicable in cases of "illegal brutality or bending of the rules in order to protect colleagues from criminal proceedings," but not to illegal actions with an "acquisitive motive."[1][2]

--------------------------

The Blue Wall of Silence, does not have an official existence. This is not a written code. John Diedrich in the Milwaukee Sentinel article titled “Wall of Silence Not Breaking” calls it the ‘unwritten code of silence’. By common reasoning, it is easy to connect the existence of police brutality with the Blue Wall of Silence. Where there is police brutality, the issue of the Blue Wall of Silence coexists. Hence it can be concluded using deductive reasoning that the Blue Wall of Silence exists at all levels of the police. The existence of the Blue Wall of Silence affects the prisoners who face police brutality, as well as the righteous police officers who try to tear down the Blue Wall of Silence.

The case of Frank Jude Jr. merits special attention in this context. Frank Jude Jr., was savagely beaten Oct. 24 by a dozen men who, witnesses said identified themselves as off-duty police officers. This was a case in which the officers’ testimony became crucial. This is a case when the Blue Wall of Silence affects the life of Frank Jude Jr., a victim of police brutality. According to New York Daily News, Barry, a 16-year veteran of the force, contends she was demoted and brought up on disciplinary charges after whistle-blowing on the truancy unit of the Queens South Task Force in 1998. Barry was demoted, assigned to midnight tours and accused of failing to supervise her unit. She was further labeled by other cops as a ‘rat’."Cops will tolerate psychos, alcoholics, wife-beaters, dweebs and geeks, but they will not tolerate rats. Period," said Tony Bouza, chief of the Minneapolis Police Department from 1980 to 1988. In this particular case, the Blue Wall of Silence has affected the life of a righteous police officer, Barry.
------------------------

Behind the NYPD's Blue Wall of Silence
NYPD
A City and Its Police
By James Lardner and Thomas Reppetto
Henry Holt -- 368pp -- $27.50





----------------------

Noun 1. blue wall of silence - the secrecy of police officers who lie or look the other way to protect other police officers; "the blue wall cracked when some officers refused to take part in the cover-up"
blue wall, wall of silence
cover-up - concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public

As I wrote before you have some useful information here, and I may yet read it. I hope a lot of people study the subject. Police misbehavior is more important than a lot of other things in the news.
Don't forget we are all amateurs here - as far as I know; so most of us are not going to spend a whole lot of time reading books to post here.
The story of Frank Jude is depressing; but it has limited relevance for the Simpson case. Not just the wrong city, the wrong side of the continent. Also Frank Jude was not a celebrity. It is common sense that police are more likely to mistreat people who have no power - that is little money or connections, and not celebrities. A rich celebrity can fight back with a lot more resources than Frank Jude could.

I also find it hard to take seriously when people state two inconsistent beliefs:
(1) most police are decent, honorable people.
(2) most police will take part in the blue wall of silence.
These two beliefs are at odds with each other.
I have never head of a cop resigning in protest of the blue wall of silence; nor have I heard of ex police men complaining about it. I therefore think it is not strong as many think. That is, the blue wall of silence is not reliable enough to make Fuhrman believe that he could tamper with evidence and have the rest of the LAPD look in the other direction.

Police departments and individual cops should not be judged on soley on their worst behavior.

[GreenIce]

I did not find any testimony of Ms Arnell in the Grand Jury

Martin,

Arnelle did testify in the grand jury. However, if you have the time, read Lange and Vanatter's testimony. They are shown pictures of the blood drops but no pictures of the blood drops on the back gate. If Lange and VA telling the truth, they should have cut this much sooner then they did.

Also, VA, I think testifies about seeing blood on the turning mechanism on the back gate---so how was this missed?

[GreenIce]

As I wrote before you have some useful information here, and I may yet read it. I hope a lot of people study the subject. Police misbehavior is more important than a lot of other things in the news.
Don't forget we are all amateurs here - as far as I know; so most of us are not going to spend a whole lot of time reading books to post here.
The story of Frank Jude is depressing; but it has limited relevance for the Simpson case. Not just the wrong city, the wrong side of the continent. Also Frank Jude was not a celebrity. It is common sense that police are more likely to mistreat people who have no power - that is little money or connections, and not celebrities. A rich celebrity can fight back with a lot more resources than Frank Jude could.

I also find it hard to take seriously when people state two inconsistent beliefs:
(1) most police are decent, honorable people.
(2) most police will take part in the blue wall of silence.
These two beliefs are at odds with each other.
I have never head of a cop resigning in protest of the blue wall of silence; nor have I heard of ex police men complaining about it. I therefore think it is not strong as many think. That is, the blue wall of silence is not reliable enough to make Fuhrman believe that he could tamper with evidence and have the rest of the LAPD look in the other direction.

Police departments and individual cops should not be judged on soley on their worst behavior.

fgump2,

Are you serious? Cops should not be judge soley on their worst behavior? What exactly does that mean?

Are you suggesting that all the good the cop does should out weigh any criminal acts they do or participate in? If that is the case, then why don't you give that same benefit to OJ Simpson?

[martin II]

As I wrote before you have some useful information here, and I may yet read it. I hope a lot of people study the subject. Police misbehavior is more important than a lot of other things in the news.
Don't forget we are all amateurs here - as far as I know; so most of us are not going to spend a whole lot of time reading books to post here.
The story of Frank Jude is depressing; but it has limited relevance for the Simpson case. Not just the wrong city, the wrong side of the continent. Also Frank Jude was not a celebrity. It is common sense that police are more likely to mistreat people who have no power - that is little money or connections, and not celebrities. A rich celebrity can fight back with a lot more resources than Frank Jude could.

I also find it hard to take seriously when people state two inconsistent beliefs:
(1) most police are decent, honorable people.
(2) most police will take part in the blue wall of silence.
These two beliefs are at odds with each other.
I have never head of a cop resigning in protest of the blue wall of silence; nor have I heard of ex police men complaining about it. I therefore think it is not strong as many think. That is, the blue wall of silence is not reliable enough to make Fuhrman believe that he could tamper with evidence and have the rest of the LAPD look in the other direction.

Police departments and individual cops should not be judged on soley on their worst behavior.


if you refuse to read the reports i provided then there is no chance that you will be informed. You will continue to post what you think is the case. imo

[fgump2]

The cops in the reports i gave you did none of what you think cops would. in your 2 abd 3 above
They remained silent until the reports exposed them.So you can tell yourself various excusses to try to debunk the BWS but that would be a mistake if you are interested in the truth. or not evading it.imo:hat:

My points which I numbered 2 & 3 applied only to celebrities, at least rich celebrities.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

Are you serious? Cops should not be judge soley on their worst behavior? What exactly does that mean?

Are you suggesting that all the good the cop does should out weigh any criminal acts they do or participate in? If that is the case, then why don't you give that same benefit to OJ Simpson?

I admit I shouldn't have written that. I meant write something like: individual cops should be judged on the basis of the worst members of their profession, and individual PDs should be judged on the basis of the worst PDs.

It is obviously true that we often have to judge people on the basis of their worst behavior. That is the basis on which we send people to prison, and sometimes fire people. So I was wrong.

[fgump2]

If Simpson called anyone to clean up why not have them clean up the blood spots leading into his foyer from the Bronco and inside the Bronco, if he was the murderer? The person doing the cleaning up probably would have been sleepy and nervous. Petrocelli suggested they would have kept the lights off in to keep neighbors and motorists from seeing anything unusual. I think that sleepiness and nervousness could account for a lousy job of cleaning up. Also the person might not have known that police would be on the way.

[bobaugust]

No, attotney made the slip of, non slip of, forked-tongue, MF admit to seeing two gloves at Bundy, IMHO, but a lawyer caught MF's slip of, non slip of his forked-tongue, IMHO.

The fact that Fuhrman testified he didn’t see anything obvious when he first went down the dark south path with a flashlight is not evidence that no one had previously been behind Kaelin’s room when Kaelin heard the noises on his wall and felt the vibrations on his back. Kaelin testified he believed someone was back there. The fact that Fuhrman discovered the killer’s glove on the path opposite the back wall to Kaelin’s room is proof that Kaelin was correct.

Kaelin was not outside “at” the time someone made the noises and caused the vibrations that tilted a picture on that wall he was inside his room sitting on his bed with his back against the headboard talking on the telephone. Shortly after the noises occurred Kaelin left his room to investigate what he heard and when he came around the house with a flashlight down the Ashford side path he was seen by Allan Park who then almost simultaneously saw Simpson walk up from the driveway, enter his house and lights come on downstairs in the house.

There is no evidence that Simpson was in his house when Kaelin heard those noises.

Because Peratis was legally unavailable to testify in the criminal trial the video tape made by the prosecution showed Peratis saying things that contradict what he previously testified to during the preliminary hearing. That video tape was admissible to prove that his prior testimony about drawing approximately eight milliliters should be distrusted. The point being that Peratis didn’t know how much blood he drew because he didn’t measure it and he never does. According to Goldberg and the court this was legally acceptable based on section 1202, entitled "Credibility of Hearsay Declarant" of the California Evidence Code.

If the blood stain that was shown in the crime scene photograph was the same blood stain that Martz tested then that is additional evidence that supported Martz’s conclusion that the rear gate evidence stain he tested did not come from Simpson’s EDTA preserved blood reference sample.

Fuhrman clearly testified in the criminal trial that when he had said the word “them” in the preliminary hearing he was referring to the knit hat and one glove that he and every other witness saw under the plant leaves at Bundy.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

i think you know kato did not say what door he entered.

Kato made it clear that when he went outside his room with Fuhrman he saw Arnelle and the detectives enter Simpson’s house and then he an Fuhrman followed them into the house. Kaelin said, “WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.”

If you look at the diagram I posted a link to you will be able to see exactly what door Arnelle, the detectives, and Kaelin used. The door nearest to Kaelin and Arnelle’s rooms, the first of three doors that lead into the family room.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

I admit I shouldn't have written that. I meant write something like: individual cops should be judged on the basis of the worst members of their profession, and individual PDs should be judged on the basis of the worst PDs.

It is obviously true that we often have to judge people on the basis of their worst behavior. That is the basis on which we send people to prison, and sometimes fire people. So I was wrong.

fgump2,

I am sure you have heard of the saying, "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel". The problem is very elementary. It is very obvious when good cops are covering for bad cops and as a result of this, they tarnish their own reputation. Not only do the cops tarnish their own credibility, but they take the judge and the DA's with them.

In this case, it was more then obvious that Vanatter took the hits for the home team, Lange played the "see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil" cop and Phillips spent his time back tracking and making sure that Fuhrman's whereabouts and actions were seen by somebody.

IMO, the most damning thing MF did was to disobey Phillips order not to talk to LHM. Not only does he talk to her but he brags about being the star witness in the trial of the century and that if he goes down, the glove goes down and the case goes bye-bye and Clark knows it. What does this tell you?

You can't deny that MF held the Simpson trial hostage and you know something, he came out the biggest winner of all! IMO.

[GreenIce]

Kato made it clear that when he went outside his room with Fuhrman he saw Arnelle and the detectives enter Simpson’s house and then he an Fuhrman followed them into the house. Kaelin said, “WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.”

If you look at the diagram I posted a link to you will be able to see exactly what door Arnelle, the detectives, and Kaelin used. The door nearest to Kaelin and Arnelle’s rooms, the first of three doors that lead into the family room.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

bobaugust

Mr. August,

And Ron Phillips describes using a completely different door. Sorry, read his testimony, it is all there.

I was able to enlarge the photo. It does not label any of the doors where they entered.

What is clear is that the detectives all choose a door where they could see MF at all times.

It is also read Phillips testimony, he has 5 detectives at the scene and 4 of them were talking to Arnelle. Maybe Brad Roberts?:)

[martin II]

As I wrote before you have some useful information here, and I may yet read it. I hope a lot of people study the subject. Police misbehavior is more important than a lot of other things in the news.
Don't forget we are all amateurs here - as far as I know; so most of us are not going to spend a whole lot of time reading books to post here.
The story of Frank Jude is depressing; but it has limited relevance for the Simpson case. Not just the wrong city, the wrong side of the continent. Also Frank Jude was not a celebrity. It is common sense that police are more likely to mistreat people who have no power - that is little money or connections, and not celebrities. A rich celebrity can fight back with a lot more resources than Frank Jude could.

I also find it hard to take seriously when people state two inconsistent beliefs:

BWS is as strong as the reports i posted to you reports.In Rampart there were 70 from the same unit. Celebrity has nothing to do with it.
(1) most police are decent, honorable people.
(2) most police will take part in the blue wall of silence.
These two beliefs are at odds with each other.
I have never head of a cop resigning in protest of the blue wall of silence; nor have I heard of ex police men complaining about it. I therefore think it is not strong as many think. That is, the blue wall of silence is not reliable enough to make Fuhrman believe that he could tamper with evidence and have the rest of the LAPD look in the other direction.

Police departments and individual cops should not be judged on soley on their worst behavior.

I think most have said that there is a small number of bad cops. not what you clain in yout no 2
Celebrity has nothing to do with it.

[martin II]

FGUMP2

No one said the REST of lapd looked the other way so i am not sure why you made that comment.:shrug:

[William Anthony]

Were Kato and all four detectives lying when they said they entered through the back door together? They would have no reason to lie about this fact -- it didn't help the case against Simpson to say they went in through the back. Kato would never have been capable of making that kind of sophisticated calculation in the first place, and he would have no reason to. Neither would the cops. Even if you have a jaundiced view of the LAPD and believe there are bad cops who fabricate evidence or concoct incriminating scenarios, it would be nearly impossible to get four police officers to lie about a seemingly minor detail when any one of them could turn on the others and rat them out. At the time it was an innocuous fact.

But that innocuous fact leads to an incriminating conclusion: after Simpson left, someone else was in the house.

The police found a load of wet laundry sitting in Simpson's washing machine, apparently including some of Arnelle's underwear (Who testified to any of this?). The housekeeper, Gigi Guarin, hadn't run it. She had been away that weekend and had testified in the criminal trial that she had left Friday with all the laundry dried and folded. In any case, she didn't do Arnelle's wash. When shown a video of the contents of the washing machine while testifying in the criminal trial, Gigi identified the the laundry basket as Arnelle's. (Take a good lok at the testimony to see what she actually testified.[/B) ]Arnelle said she hadn't done any laundry from June 9 through June 12, nor had she been inside the main house, which included the laundry room, since Saturday night. She said she had gotten home Sunday morning and gone straight to bed. Simpson didn't do the laundry, that night or any night.

So, who did this load of laundry? Why was it still in the machine? To what end? ([B]Who testified any laundry was there?)

They took their load -- a sweatsuit? towels? -- and ran it through the washing machine, then ran a load behind it as camoflage...

In their haste on the way out, whoever did this clean-up job forgot to reset the system.

(Daniel Petrocelli, Triumph of Justice, excerpts from pages 278 -279)

IMO Arnelle lied -- she lied about the door she took the detectives in and she lied about the laundry. No one else had a reason to lie about either one.

So, you call the beautiful Ms. Arnelle a liar, because Petrocelli did and misquoted testimony. Alright!

[William Anthony]

The person doing the cleaning up probably would have been sleepy and nervous. Petrocelli suggested they would have kept the lights off in to keep neighbors and motorists from seeing anything unusual. I think that sleepiness and nervousness could account for a lousy job of cleaning up. Also the person might not have known that police would be on the way.

I tend to think for myself and some have assigned sleepiness and nervousness to LE to say they were careless. Was that you? In any event, if the theory is that the person was willing to clean up, then why not have them clean up the blood? I am sorry but it is just not logical to me, despite what Petrocelli claims.

[William Anthony]

The fact that Fuhrman testified he didn’t see anything obvious when he first went down the dark south path with a flashlight is not evidence that no one had previously been behind Kaelin’s room when Kaelin heard the noises on his wall and felt the vibrations on his back. (The onus was on the prosecution to prove that Simpson was back there beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the evidence should be to prove that point and not that, because the evidence can't prove it, Simpson must have been back there, because we say he was. Kaelin testified he believed someone was back there. (People once believed the earth was flat.) The fact that Fuhrman discovered the killer’s glove on the path opposite the back wall to Kaelin’s room is proof that Kaelin was correct. (The convicted perjurer alleged he found the glove there.)

Kaelin was not outside “at” the time someone made the noises and caused the vibrations that tilted a picture on that wall he was inside his room sitting on his bed with his back against the headboard talking on the telephone. Shortly after the noises occurred Kaelin left his room to investigate what he heard and when he came around the house with a flashlight down the Ashford side path he was seen by Allan Park who then almost simultaneously saw Simpson walk up from the driveway, enter his house and lights come on downstairs in the house. (So, no one saw Simpson behind Kato's quarters.)

There is no evidence that Simpson was in his house when Kaelin heard those noises. (There is no evidence that he was not, which was what the prosecution had to prove.)

Because Peratis was legally unavailable to testify in the criminal trial the video tape made by the prosecution showed Peratis saying things that contradict what he previously testified to during the preliminary hearing. That video tape was admissible to prove that his prior testimony about drawing approximately eight milliliters should be distrusted. The point being that Peratis didn’t know how much blood he drew because he didn’t measure it and he never does. According to Goldberg and the court this was legally acceptable based on section 1202, entitled "Credibility of Hearsay Declarant" of the California Evidence Code.

If the blood stain that was shown in the crime scene photograph was the same blood stain that Martz tested then that is additional evidence that supported Martz’s conclusion that the rear gate evidence stain he tested did not come from Simpson’s EDTA preserved blood reference sample.

Fuhrman clearly testified in the criminal trial that when he had said the word “them” in the preliminary hearing he was referring to the knit hat and one glove that he and every other witness saw under the plant leaves at Bundy.

bobaugust

I think you first must understand what hearsay is and then you will know what a hearsay declarant is. Example, Bobaugust said that he started the Chicago fire and blamed it own Ms. O'leary's cow. I am the person speaking the statement is hearsay because I am making the statement out of court for the truth of the matter asserted. I am the hearsay declarant. There was no one saying that Peratis drew any blood but Peratis. Therefore, the statement was not hearsay and Peratis was not a hearsay declarant. I think there may have been another reason it was admissible.

How many times do I have to tell you that I have no problem with you believing what a convicted perjurer said or what portions you want to believe. We simply disagree on which portions should be credited or discredited.

[GreenIce]

My points which I numbered 2 & 3 applied only to celebrities, at least rich celebrities.

fgump2,

Why do you put celebrities in a different category? Do you think every police officer has instant respect and awe for a famous person they would never do anything wrong? That they would tamper and plant evidence on a poor person but never a rich one? Does that make sense to you?

I am a huge sports fan but I have to be honest with you, I don't think one player in any sport is worth $25 million dollars a year, in any sport. And I know there are players who are paid even more and some paid less. However, bottomline, it is still a game and adult men get paid millions of dollars to play a kid's game.

I love to go the movies, but do I think an actor is worth $20 million dollars a movie? No, I don't. I think it is fair to say that many people would feel if you are good acting or a sport, you are lucky, it is not like it is a real job or anything.

The public sees the glory in these fields, they don't see the bumps and bruises and separation from their families, the worry an injury will take this all away, etc. One stupid move in public or make one contervisal statement or movie that then it is all over with.

Being rich and famous does not protect you from jealousy. Being rich and famous doesn't mean you will find personal happiness either.

This is an honest question, why do cops feel that there is a time and a place when it is okay to break the rules? Why when cops are caught lying on the stand there has to be hearing to see if it is on a "material issue"? I am sorry but credibility is a material issue and if it is proven that it was lie and not a mistake, there is reason behind it and that reason is not in the best interest of justice. IMO.

[William Anthony]

I think you first must understand what hearsay is and then you will know what a hearsay declarant is. Example, Bobaugust said that he started the Chicago fire and blamed it own Ms. O'leary's cow. I am the person speaking the statement is hearsay because I am making the statement out of court for the truth of the matter asserted. I am the hearsay declarant. There was no one saying that Peratis drew any blood but Peratis. Therefore, the statement was not hearsay and Peratis was not a hearsay declarant. I think there may have been another reason it was admissible.

How many times do I have to tell you that I have no problem with you believing what a convicted perjurer said or what portions you want to believe. We simply disagree on which portions should be credited or discredited.

Correction-I think you first must understand what hearsay is and then you will know what a hearsay declarant is. Example, Bobaugust said that he started the Chicago fire and blamed it on Ms. O'leary's cow. I am the person speaking. The statement is hearsay because I am making the statement out of court for the truth of the matter asserted that another person made the statement. I am the hearsay declarant. There was no one saying that Peratis drew any blood but Peratis. Therefore, the statement was not hearsay and Peratis was not a hearsay declarant. I think there may have been another reason it was admissible.

How many times do I have to tell you that I have no problem with you believing what a convicted perjurer said or what portions you want to believe. We simply disagree on which portions should be credited or discredited.

[William Anthony]

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h007.htm

"Testimony during a hearing or trial is not hearsay unless the witness tries to repeat something someone else said or wrote. In addition, a statement introduced to prove something other than its truth is not hearsay. For example, testimony may be offered to show the speaker's
state of mind."

"Hearsay is any statement made outside a hearing or trial which is presented at the hearing or trial to prove the truth of the contents of the statement. All evidence rules begin with the premise that hearsay cannot be used in court because secondhand testimony is considered unreliable and because the person who made the original statement is often unavailable for cross-examination. Statements in the forms of letters, affidavits, declarations, diaries, memos, oral statements, notes, computer files, legal documents, purchase receipts and contracts all constitute hearsay when they are offered to prove that their contents are true."


California Evidence Code, section 1202

"Evidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that
is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant received in
evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of
attacking the credibility of the declarant though he is not given and
has not had an opportunity to explain or to deny such inconsistent
statement or other conduct. Any other evidence offered to attack or
support the credibility of the declarant is admissible if it would
have been admissible had the declarant been a witness at the hearing.
For the purposes of this section, the deponent of a deposition taken
in the action in which it is offered shall be deemed to be a hearsay
declarant.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=16039

“A witness cannot be brought on merely to be impeached. The right of a party to thus impeach his own witness who gives testimony injurious to him is not involved here, and upon that we express no opinion; but in the present case the evident purpose was to prove a substantive fact by a purely hearsay statement under the guise of impeaching a witness. This the court properly refused to permit. See Wigmore on Evidence, vol. II, sec. 904, subd. 8; Sturgis v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 362, 386, 102 P. 57; Langford v. Jones, 18 Or. 307, 22 P. 1064; People v. Jacobs, 49 Cal. 384; Mercer v. State,”

[martin II]

I admit I shouldn't have written that. I meant write something like: individual cops should be judged on the basis of the worst members of their profession, and individual PDs should be judged on the basis of the worst PDs.

It is obviously true that we often have to judge people on the basis of their worst behavior. That is the basis on which we send people to prison, and sometimes fire people. So I was wrong.

The problem with the BWS is that it hurts good cops and the department because the public holds the deapartment responsible for allowing bad cops to exist.

[martin II]

fgump2,

Why do you put celebrities in a different category? Do you think every police officer has instant respect and awe for a famous person they would never do anything wrong? That they would tamper and plant evidence on a poor person but never a rich one? Does that make sense to you?

I am a huge sports fan but I have to be honest with you, I don't think one player in any sport is worth $25 million dollars a year, in any sport. And I know there are players who are paid even more and some paid less. However, bottomline, it is still a game and adult men get paid millions of dollars to play a kid's game.

I love to go the movies, but do I think an actor is worth $20 million dollars a movie? No, I don't. I think it is fair to say that many people would feel if you are good acting or a sport, you are lucky, it is not like it is a real job or anything.

The public sees the glory in these fields, they don't see the bumps and bruises and separation from their families, the worry an injury will take this all away, etc. One stupid move in public or make one contervisal statement or movie that then it is all over with.

Being rich and famous does not protect you from jealousy. Being rich and famous doesn't mean you will find personal happiness either.

This is an honest question, why do cops feel that there is a time and a place when it is okay to break the rules? Why when cops are caught lying on the stand there has to be hearing to see if it is on a "material issue"? I am sorry but credibility is a material issue and if it is proven that it was lie and not a mistake, there is reason behind it and that reason is not in the best interest of justice. IMO.

Side issue
Most players have a active playing career of about 5-8 years.People pay money to see them perform.Owners take in many millions of this period of time. The players should receive compensation equal to their popularity and ticket selling ability.

Cops swear to uphold the law ALL THE TIME not some time.They take a oath to serve the people ALL THE TIME. Cops need the commuinity's cooperation to do their jobs correctly and they cannot get this cooperation by abusing the citizens and breaking the law. I think you have a point about a lie being a lie and that is how the public judged MF.

Example Vanhatter wrote a obvious lie on paper and gave it to the judge. Some try to claim it was not a lie but a 'ASSUMPTION ' by him. Request for search warrants must contain the Truth and facts.Not assumptions.

Does oj get to make assumptions or mistakes? Not by some.

[martin II]

Back door testimony

There were a total of five doors on the east side of the house.(back)

Two were nailed shut. The other three could not be opened from the outside
as the locks were on the inside of the house.

I think it was GIGIS testimony that the defense put a picture of the unnailed back doors on the elmo and zoomed in on the back door handles.

[martin II]

The person doing the cleaning up probably would have been sleepy and nervous. Petrocelli suggested they would have kept the lights off in to keep neighbors and motorists from seeing anything unusual. I think that sleepiness and nervousness could account for a lousy job of cleaning up. Also the person might not have known that police would be on the way.

Some times i am completely confused by the number of excuses some try to use even when the excuse is made against known evidence.

There was no testimony or accusation that anyone did any clean up at Rockingham.
Was any blood in the rockingham driveway and the foyer of ojs house cleaned up by anyone.Any evidence of that.
All of ojs friends accounted for their time.The maid was not there. If oj had killed Nicole he would have known le would be at his house pronto.
So with no evidence of any claen up attemps, How can you suggest there was.

[William Anthony]

Some times i am completely confused by the number of excuses some try to use even when the excuse is made against known evidence.

There was no testimony or accusation that anyone did any clean up at Rockingham.
Was any blood in the rockingham driveway and the foyer of ojs house cleaned up by anyone.Any evidence of that.
All of ojs friends accounted for their time.The maid was not there. If oj had killed Nicole he would have known le would be at his house pronto.
So with no evidence of any claen up attemps, How can you suggest there was.

Martin,

Why would the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle be afraid to cut the lights on in her father's home or of passers by saying look there are lights on in the Simpson estate, someone must be cleaning up after the murders? I saw lights on in the house and that must mean Simpson committed murder. What can a sweatsuit in a washing machine, if there was one, prove, since the maid never saw Simpson with one like it?

[martin II]

Were Kato and all four detectives lying when they said they entered through the back door together? They would have no reason to lie about this fact -- it didn't help the case against Simpson to say they went in through the back. Kato would never have been capable of making that kind of sophisticated calculation in the first place, and he would have no reason to. Neither would the cops. Even if you have a jaundiced view of the LAPD and believe there are bad cops who fabricate evidence or concoct incriminating scenarios, it would be nearly impossible to get four police officers to lie about a seemingly minor detail when any one of them could turn on the others and rat them out. At the time it was an innocuous fact.

But that innocuous fact leads to an incriminating conclusion: after Simpson left, someone else was in the house.

The police found a load of wet laundry sitting in Simpson's washing machine, apparently including some of Arnelle's underwear. The housekeeper, Gigi Guarin, hadn't run it. She had been away that weekend and had testified in the criminal trial that she had left Friday with all the laundry dried and folded. In any case, she didn't do Arnelle's wash. When shown a video of the contents of the washing machine while testifying in the criminal trial, Gigi identified the the laundry basket as Arnelle's. Arnelle said she hadn't done any laundry from June 9 through June 12, nor had she been inside the main house, which included the laundry room, since Saturday night. She said she had gotten home Sunday morning and gone straight to bed. Simpson didn't do the laundry, that night or any night.

So, who did this load of laundry? Why was it still in the machine? To what end?

They took their load -- a sweatsuit? towels? -- and ran it through the washing machine, then ran a load behind it as camoflage...

In their haste on the way out, whoever did this clean-up job forgot to reset the system.

(Daniel Petrocelli, Triumph of Justice, excerpts from pages 278 -279)

IMO Arnelle lied -- she lied about the door she took the detectives in and she lied about the laundry. No one else had a reason to lie about either one.

There was no court testimony to back up your claims so i will take your post as your opinions although you posted them as facts.

[William Anthony]

There was no court testimony to back up your claims so i will take your post as your opinions although you posted them as facts.

I thought it was Petrocelli's opinion regurgitated.

[tv]

The person doing the cleaning up probably would have been sleepy and nervous. Petrocelli suggested they would have kept the lights off in to keep neighbors and motorists from seeing anything unusual. I think that sleepiness and nervousness could account for a lousy job of cleaning up. Also the person might not have known that police would be on the way.

IMO, no one tried to clean up blood spots. I think that Simpson called someone, most likely Arnelle, as an afterthought, to have them wash the sweats. It makes sense that it was Arnelle because her underwear was in the washer with the sweats and her laundry basket was identified by Gigi. I don't think Simpson realized he'd dripped blood in so many places and I don't think Arnelle saw the blood either. She started the washer and hastened back to her room, IMO. I'm not even sure she knew why she had been asked to do it until she found out from the detectives that Nicole had been murdered.

Before the outcry about 'Miss Arnelle couldn't lie because she's so beautiful' begins I'll add that I'm not saying she lied because I'm being nasty toward Arnelle or making things up for the fun of it. She testified in both trials and in both trials it's obvious she's not being truthful on at least two points -- possibly three.

[martin II]

Martin,

Why would the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle be afraid to cut the lights on in her father's home or of passers by saying look there are lights on in the Simpson estate, someone must be cleaning up after the murders? I saw lights on in the house and that must mean Simpson committed murder. What can a sweatsuit in a washing machine, if there was one, prove, since the maid never saw Simpson with one like it?

Any excuse can be offered if one is ignoring the evidence.Maby oj is not allowed to leave lights on in his house.Maby people driving by his house have a habit of stopping to see if lights are on. Lights on in any room can be seen by people driving by.Park was the one that thought he saw certain lights in the house when it was impossible from where he was.But them he also saw two cars in the driveway when everyone knew there was only one.Even the prosecution.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

I reread my post #15407, where I used the pronoun, you, and it was not meant in a personal way but I should have used the word, one, since many practitioners, nor do I, do not fully understand hearsay and its exceptions. Thanks.

[martin II]

IMO, no one tried to clean up blood spots. I think that Simpson called someone, most likely Arnelle, as an afterthought, to have them wash the sweats. It makes sense that it was Arnelle because her underwear was in the washer with the sweats and her laundry basket was identified by Gigi. I don't think Simpson realized he'd dripped blood in so many places and I don't think Arnelle saw the blood either. She started the washer and hastened back to her room, IMO. I'm not even sure she knew why she had been asked to do it until she found out from the detectives that Nicole had been murdered.

Before the outcry about 'Miss Arnelle couldn't lie because she's so beautiful' begins I'll add that I'm not saying she lied because I'm being nasty toward Arnelle or making things up for the fun of it. She testified in both trials and in both trials it's obvious she's not being truthful on at least two points -- possibly three.

Maby someone can offer testimony that sweats were in a washing machine.
And maby someone can show testimony that the sweats were the source of the fibers found since no sweats were ever presented in court.

[William Anthony]

Any excuse can be offered if one is ignoring the evidence.Maby oj is not allowed to leave lights on in his house.Maby people driving by his house have a habit of stopping to see if lights are on. Lights on in any room can be seen by people driving by.Park was the one that thought he saw certain lights in the house when it was impossible from where he was.But them he also saw two cars in the driveway when everyone knew there was only one.Even the prosecution.

Martin,

Of course people are entitled to their own opinions and, by the rules suppose to give reasons/evidence to have formed the conclusion. I think the reasons should be based on the evidence and not speculation to support speculative opinions. If I am guilty of this, I am certain it will be pointed out. :)

[martin II]

IMO, no one tried to clean up blood spots. I think that Simpson called someone, most likely Arnelle, as an afterthought, to have them wash the sweats. It makes sense that it was Arnelle because her underwear was in the washer with the sweats and her laundry basket was identified by Gigi. I don't think Simpson realized he'd dripped blood in so many places and I don't think Arnelle saw the blood either. She started the washer and hastened back to her room, IMO. I'm not even sure she knew why she had been asked to do it until she found out from the detectives that Nicole had been murdered.

Before the outcry about 'Miss Arnelle couldn't lie because she's so beautiful' begins I'll add that I'm not saying she lied because I'm being nasty toward Arnelle or making things up for the fun of it. She testified in both trials and in both trials it's obvious she's not being truthful on at least two points -- possibly three.

The testimony that there was no way to enter any back door Arnell became a likely target simply because she was ojs daughter. Same is true when other members of ojs family has been attacked.

[William Anthony]

Maby someone can offer testimony that sweats were in a washing machine.
And maby someone can show testimony that the sweats were the source of the fibers found since no sweats were ever presented in court.

Abra-ca-dabra.

[William Anthony]

The testimony that there was no way to enter any back door Arnell became a likely target simply because she was ojs daughter. Same is true when other members of ojs family has been attacked.

Do I sense an accusation of a conspiracy, involving Simpson, the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle, CR and AC?:);):cool:

[martin II]

Actually i believe the whole sweats suite issue was a non issue of no importance to the case. My reason is related to the fact that i have not found any testimony proving the use of one on the night of 6/12 and no sweats were poresented in court.How does one believe claims about something or a item when there is no item to be seen in court. Some could very well claim the murderer wore a football outfit or some Speedos. imo

[martin II]

Abra-ca-dabra.

Darden tried to be a hero by investigating all of ojs friends as possible helpers but came up with a blank again.

The beautiful Ms Arnell is attacked because of the hatred for oj was transferred from him to her just like it was transferred to his other friends, defense witnesses and lawyers.

[William Anthony]

Actually i believe the whole sweats suite issue was a non issue of no importance to the case. My reason is related to the fact that i have not found any testimony proving the use of one on the night of 6/12 and no sweats were poresented in court.How does one believe claims about something or a item when there is no item to be seen in court. Some could very well claim the murderer wore a football outfit or some Speedos. imo

Martin,

I agree and find the whole thing comical. One must believe something that disappeared and dismiss the maid who said that she "never ever" (thanks to Darden) saw Simpson with one to accuse him and his family and/or friends of a crime.

[GreenIce]

I just thought of something, if the cops truly thought that they had victims on the inside of the main house, then it shouldn't have mattered to them what Arnelle said about her father.

If the detectives were truly concerned about the maid and Simpson, then why did Arnelle get her telephone book? I think this proves that Arnelle is telling the truth, she told them her father was not home but she knew a person who would know exactly where he was.

Doesn't it only make sense they would have been firm and said, "Ms. Simpson, we have to get inside the house and we are asking you to open the door and allow us to inside, search the house and then we will come back and let you know it is safe and then we will get in touch with your father.

Also, in reading the detectives testimony, I don't think the three detectives or the two detectives were asked if Arnelle did turn off the alarm. I know Arnelle was but why weren't they?

[William Anthony]

I just thought of something, if the cops truly thought that they had victims on the inside of the main house, then it shouldn't have mattered to them what Arnelle said about her father.

If the detectives were truly concerned about the maid and Simpson, then why did Arnelle get her telephone book? I think this proves that Arnelle is telling the truth, she told them her father was not home but she knew a person who would know exactly where he was.

Doesn't it only make sense they would have been firm and said, "Ms. Simpson, we have to get inside the house and we are asking you to open the door and allow us to inside, search the house and then we will come back and let you know it is safe and then we will get in touch with your father.

Also, in reading the detectives testimony, I don't think the three detectives or the two detectives were asked if Arnelle did turn off the alarm. I know Arnelle was but why weren't they?

GreenIce,

I think that is an excellent point.

[martin II]

IMO, no one tried to clean up blood spots. I think that Simpson called someone, most likely Arnelle, as an afterthought, to have them wash the sweats. It makes sense that it was Arnelle because her underwear was in the washer with the sweats and her laundry basket was identified by Gigi. I don't think Simpson realized he'd dripped blood in so many places and I don't think Arnelle saw the blood either. She started the washer and hastened back to her room, IMO. I'm not even sure she knew why she had been asked to do it until she found out from the detectives that Nicole had been murdered.

Before the outcry about 'Miss Arnelle couldn't lie because she's so beautiful' begins I'll add that I'm not saying she lied because I'm being nasty toward Arnelle or making things up for the fun of it. She testified in both trials and in both trials it's obvious she's not being truthful on at least two points -- possibly three.

Before Arnella testified le had access to ojs house and the back doors.They knew there were no locks on the ourside of the three doors.But they tossed this nonsense in about le and Arnell entering the back door to try to support another claim about the nonexistant sweats.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

I agree and find the whole thing comical. One must believe something that disappeared and dismiss the maid who said that she "never ever" (thanks to Darden) saw Simpson with one to accuse him and his family and/or friends of a crime.

William,

I used to think it was comical as well. However, I now see it as horror show. To read post after post insisting that this evidence exists, even when the search warrant says it may not exist, is chilling. People consider this evidence even when it was never introduced as evidence. Such as person testifying that they did look in the washer and they did take the items of clothes out and the clothes were .............?

Also, if those items were sweats, how do we know they were a man's?

Doesn't it strike you odd how Kato always described the clothing, "it was a sweat suit type outfit". IMO, Kato being a guy and loving sports would not have described it like that. Most are going to say that he wore sweats and leave it at that.

I think it is obvious that Kato was never sure what he was wearing and he saw Simpson both in the daylight as well as inside the house when he was getting ready to leave the airport.

[GreenIce]

Before Arnella testified le had access to ojs house and the back doors.They knew there were no locks on the ourside of the three doors.But they tossed this nonsense in about le and Arnell entering the back door to try to support another claim about the nonexistant sweats.

Martin,

I disagree with you, I don't think the door debate has anything to do with Arnelle's credibililty or the sweats, I think it has to do with MF and that he was able to be seen and he was being watched therefore trying to give the impression that if he picked up a glove and planted it, he would have been caught doing it.

Even MF's testimony supports this. He said that he did not have to ask Kato which door to use because one was left open. Had the door not been left open, he would have had to ask Kato how to enter the house. Again, this makes no sense, because that is not what Kato testified to and how could he see that the front door was open if he lag behind with Kato?

What is interesting is if MF entered the house, followed the voices, dropped Kato off so he could investigate the thumps, why did he exit the front door when he came in the back door? Doesn't it only make sense he would have left using the same door he entered? Wouldn't this have saved valuable time? And why did it take him 15 minutes to find the glove? If there was a victim back there, I would think 15 minutes would be a long time to wait for a rescue. IMO.

[martin II]

I just thought of something, if the cops truly thought that they had victims on the inside of the main house, then it shouldn't have mattered to them what Arnelle said about her father.

If the detectives were truly concerned about the maid and Simpson, then why did Arnelle get her telephone book? I think this proves that Arnelle is telling the truth, she told them her father was not home but she knew a person who would know exactly where he was.

Doesn't it only make sense they would have been firm and said, "Ms. Simpson, we have to get inside the house and we are asking you to open the door and allow us to inside, search the house and then we will come back and let you know it is safe and then we will get in touch with your father.

Also, in reading the detectives testimony, I don't think the three detectives or the two detectives were asked if Arnelle did turn off the alarm. I know Arnelle was but why weren't they?


It is my opinion that the coppers were pretty sure they would find oj in his house getting rid of evidence. That when Kato told them was was on a flight to chicago they knew he was not in the house and they knew the maid was not home. They should have then said thanks and headed to a nearby donut shop before going back to the main crime scene which they had abandoned to try to catch oj.

The internal alarm can be accessed from the front door by walking into the foyer the kitchen and to the alarm.
Kato testified that Arnell led the way with her keys in her hand. why would she take out her keys to unlock the back doors when no back door had outside locks on them.imo

[William Anthony]

William,

I used to think it was comical as well. However, I now see it as horror show. To read post after post insisting that this evidence exists, even when the search warrant says it may not exist, is chilling. People consider this evidence even when it was never introduced as evidence. Such as person testifying that they did look in the washer and they did take the items of clothes out and the clothes were .............?

Also, if those items were sweats, how do we know they were a man's?

Doesn't it strike you odd how Kato always described the clothing, "it was a sweat suit type outfit". IMO, Kato being a guy and loving sports would not have described it like that. Most are going to say that he wore sweats and leave it at that.

I think it is obvious that Kato was never sure what he was wearing and he saw Simpson both in the daylight as well as inside the house when he was getting ready to leave the airport.

To some, where there is no evidence only speculation there is evidence, IMHO. We know nothing of the alleged sweats, only that they do not fit the description of what Kato said he saw Simpson wearing.

[tv]

MR. DARDEN: Let me just show you a small portion of this video. Please look at the monitor.

(At 2:34 P.M., People's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played for the witness.)

MR. DARDEN: This is 3:01 P.M. on the tape. Okay. Okay. Stop there. Okay.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't leave that in the washing machine, did you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you notice what the clothing items were in there?

MS. GUARIN: It's not here. So no.

MR. DARDEN: You want to see it again?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?

MS. GUARIN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That basket wasn't there when you left?

MS. GUARIN: No.

(At 2:36 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

[GreenIce]

It is my opinion that the coppers were pretty sure they would find oj in his house getting rid of evidence. That when Kato told them was was on a flight to chicago they knew he was not in the house and they knew the maid was not home. They should have then said thanks and headed to a nearby donut shop before going back to the main crime scene which they had abandoned to try to catch oj.

The internal alarm can be accessed from the front door by walking into the foyer the kitchen and to the alarm.
Kato testified that Arnell led the way with her keys in her hand. why would she take out her keys to unlock the back doors when no back door had outside locks on them.imo

Martin,

I am willing to bet everything I own or will own that the detectives knew where OJ Simpson was, knew when he left for Chicago and knew the maid was not home by 1:00 a.m.

I am also willing to bet that MF went over to Rockingham before Lange and Vanatter even got there. IMO, he had reason to suspect OJ Simpson and he had every reason to believe that Simpson was either trying to destroy evidence and/or use his trip as his alibi. He was well with in the law to be at Rockingham that soon. He also was given a free pass to go Rockingham and it he was seen, he had it all covered.

Did you ever read the testimony of the cop who said he gave the order to find OJ Simpson where ever he is and to make a personal notification? Isn't he providing a reason for members of the LAPD to be at Rockingham at 2:30 a.m. as well as 5:00 a.m.?

What I found intersting is that the cop, who gave them the order insisted, that his people be involved in the personal notification of OJ Simpson even after he and Fuhrman were no longer the lead detectives. To me, this is just another layer of protection in case any one said they knew MF went to Rockingham before 5:00 a.m. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

I disagree with you, I don't think the door debate has anything to do with Arnelle's credibililty or the sweats, I think it has to do with MF and that he was able to be seen and he was being watched therefore trying to give the impression that if he picked up a glove and planted it, he would have been caught doing it.

Even MF's testimony supports this. He said that he did not have to ask Kato which door to use because one was left open. Had the door not been left open, he would have had to ask Kato how to enter the house. Again, this makes no sense, because that is not what Kato testified to and how could he see that the front door was open if he lag behind with Kato?

What is interesting is if MF entered the house, followed the voices, dropped Kato off so he could investigate the thumps, why did he exit the front door when he came in the back door? Doesn't it only make sense he would have left using the same door he entered? Wouldn't this have saved valuable time? And why did it take him 15 minutes to find the glove? If there was a victim back there, I would think 15 minutes would be a long time to wait for a rescue. IMO.

GI
Thanks .two detectives said Arnell opened a back door to get in.Furhman said
the door was open. Kato never said which door he entered but was sure Arnell had her keys in her hand.The only door that required keys was the front door.No back door had outside locks.So the issue of Arnell lying is a non issue.It took Kato 1-2 minutes to get to the back walkway. why did it take furhman 15 minutes is the question.Why was there no log identifying what Furhman did when he found the glove.Cops all have activity logs that they carry, why was they not used at rockingham.Furhman said he made a record of what he saw and did at Bundy and gave it to vanhatterbut but none at rockingham. Why is it that there was very little information of the finding of the glove. What we know from history is that when cops don't make a record of their activities at a crime scene the door is open for them to fabricate activities when they testify.

I would think that the jury wondered why no le record was made by any cop at Rockingham. At least it gives the impression of the possibility they were hiding something.imo

Logic dictates that Furhman would have left by the same door he entered. Also there was no testimony that Kato told Furhman the best way to get to the s walkway.That walkway could be entered from the east end of the property close to the back of the house as well as from the garage. If Furhman had not been in the walkway previously, how did he know which way to get behind Katos wall.Kato did not tell him.imo

When Kato,Arnell,lang and phillips were in the kitchen talking to oj, vanhatter was outside the house. Obviously he was searching the grounds for evidence
long before he had a search warrant and he already knew oj and the maid was not there.His search was illegal.

[weezer]

IMO, no one tried to clean up blood spots. I think that Simpson called someone, most likely Arnelle, as an afterthought, to have them wash the sweats. It makes sense that it was Arnelle because her underwear was in the washer with the sweats and her laundry basket was identified by Gigi. I don't think Simpson realized he'd dripped blood in so many places and I don't think Arnelle saw the blood either. She started the washer and hastened back to her room, IMO. I'm not even sure she knew why she had been asked to do it until she found out from the detectives that Nicole had been murdered.

Before the outcry about 'Miss Arnelle couldn't lie because she's so beautiful' begins I'll add that I'm not saying she lied because I'm being nasty toward Arnelle or making things up for the fun of it. She testified in both trials and in both trials it's obvious she's not being truthful on at least two points -- possibly three.

I agree -- 'someone' came into the house after the maid left and before the pictures were taken by LE. the maid testified that there was no laundry left undone and no laundry basket in the laundry room when she left on friday. the laundry basket was identified as belonging to arnelle. there was women's lingerie in the washing machine with the sweat suit. arnelle testified that she was not home and did not use the washing machine. to ignore and/or deny the obvious serves no purpose.

[tv]

MR. DARDEN: All right. So you would--you'd make sure everything was clean?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You'd make sure all the laundry was done and folded?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You wouldn't leave for the weekend and leave wet laundry in the washing machine, would you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I will not.

[martin II]

Martin,

I am willing to bet everything I own or will own that the detectives knew where OJ Simpson was, knew when he left for Chicago and knew the maid was not home by 1:00 a.m.

I am also willing to bet that MF went over to Rockingham before Lange and Vanatter even got there. IMO, he had reason to suspect OJ Simpson and he had every reason to believe that Simpson was either trying to destroy evidence and/or use his trip as his alibi. He was well with in the law to be at Rockingham that soon. He also was given a free pass to go Rockingham and it he was seen, he had it all covered.

Did you ever read the testimony of the cop who said he gave the order to find OJ Simpson where ever he is and to make a personal notification? Isn't he providing a reason for members of the LAPD to be at Rockingham at 2:30 a.m. as well as 5:00 a.m.?

What I found intersting is that the cop, who gave them the order insisted, that his people be involved in the personal notification of OJ Simpson even after he and Fuhrman were no longer the lead detectives. To me, this is just another layer of protection in case any one said they knew MF went to Rockingham before 5:00 a.m. IMO.


The cop that gave that order was really telling the detectives go get oj and see what he is doing. LAPD had a official notification group of employees that was a notification team that did this on a regular basis. Why were they not asssigned this simple task instead of taking four detectives from the major crime scene. It was just a cover.

LAPD had the ability to call lax airport control, put ojs name in the computer and know if oj had taken a flight.

[GreenIce]

GI
Thanks .two detectives said Arnell opened a back door to get in.Furhman said
the door was open. Kato never said which door he entered but was sure Arnell had her keys in her hand.The only door that required keys was the front door.No back door had outside locks.So the issue of Arnell lying is a non issue.It took Kato 1-2 minutes to get to the back walkway. why did it take furhman 15 minutes is the question.Why was there no log identifying what Furhman did when he found the glove.Cops all have activity logs that they carry, why was they not used at rockingham.Furhman said he made a record of what he saw and did at Bundy and gave it to vanhatterbut but none at rockingham. Why is it that there was very little information of the finding of the glove. What we know from history is that when cops don't make a record of their activities at a crime scene the door is open for them to fabricate activities when they testify.

I would think that the jury wondered why no le record was made by any cop at Rockingham. At least it gives the impression of the possibility they were hiding something.imo

Logic dictates that Furhman would have left by the same door he entered. Also there was no testimony that Kato told Furhman the best way to get to the s walkway.That walkway could be entered from the east end of the property close to the back of the house as well as from the garage. If Furhman had not been in the walkway previously, how did he know which way to get behind Katos wall.Kato did not tell him.imo

When Kato,Arnell,lang and phillips were in the kitchen talking to oj, vanhatter was outside the house. Obviously he was searching the grounds for evidence
long before he had a search warrant and he already knew oj and the maid was not there.His search was illegal.

Martin,

IMO, I think is very likely that Vanatter and Lange knew of MF. They knew he tried to get into their unit and they knew he was denied, at least twice, I think. So right there, that is a motive. I also believe that they very likely knew that MF was accused of planting evidence. I have no doubt that Lange and VA believed the glove was planted and they believed MF may have been the one to do it.

I think Vanatter was searching the estate to look for even the smallest piece of evidence that did not have the stink of MF's fingers on it. He found nothing and when he found nothing, he knew he was going to have to cover for him.

While I think Vanatter did somethings to protect the case, I don't think he was a glory hound. I don't think he had the "look at me" disease. Which is why I find it very telling that MF's name was never mentioned in any of the reports, why MF never testified in the grand jury and why he was told that he would not be testifying the prelim hearing.

How can the person who found the blood glove not testify in the grand jury? Simple, tell the grand jury you are not going to use any evidence that was collected at Rockingham. Wasn't the glove billed as the link between the two crime scenes.

[William Anthony]

MR. DARDEN: Let me just show you a small portion of this video. Please look at the monitor.

(At 2:34 P.M., People's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played for the witness.)

MR. DARDEN: This is 3:01 P.M. on the tape. Okay. Okay. Stop there. Okay.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't leave that in the washing machine, did you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you notice what the clothing items were in there?

MS. GUARIN: It's not here. So no.

MR. DARDEN: You want to see it again?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?

MS. GUARIN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That basket wasn't there when you left?

MS. GUARIN: No.

(At 2:36 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

"MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?

MS. GUARIN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes."

There is nothing about a sweatsuit and Petrocelli got it right that the maid identified the basket but her answer as to whom the clothes belonged should have been stricken as it call for speculation.

[tv]

I agree -- 'someone' came into the house after the maid left and before the pictures were taken by LE. the maid testified that there was no laundry left undone and no laundry basket in the laundry room when she left on friday. the laundry basket was identified as belonging to arnelle. there was women's lingerie in the washing machine with the sweat suit. arnelle testified that she was not home and did not use the washing machine. to ignore and/or deny the obvious serves no purpose.

I agree. The testimony speaks for itself. Gigi had no reason to lie, the detectives and Kato had no reason to lie. Only Arnelle had a reason to lie about the door and about the laundry.

[William Anthony]

I agree. The testimony speaks for itself. Gigi had no reason to lie, the detectives and Kato had no reason to lie. Only Arnelle had a reason to lie about the door and about the laundry.

In the continued effots to csll the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle a liar, the obvious is overlooked, IMHO. "...'someone' came into the house after the maid left and before the pictures were taken by LE." I disagree that the someone had to have left.:);):cool

[weezer]

I agree. The testimony speaks for itself. Gigi had no reason to lie, the detectives and Kato had no reason to lie. Only Arnelle had a reason to lie about the door and about the laundry.

exactly! why lie about the washer? why not produce the clothes when LE came back for them? why would LE and Kato lie about which door they went through? makes no sense. two people benefited from lying: arnelle and orenthal. ;)

[martin II]

I agree -- 'someone' came into the house after the maid left and before the pictures were taken by LE. the maid testified that there was no laundry left undone and no laundry basket in the laundry room when she left on friday. the laundry basket was identified as belonging to arnelle. there was women's lingerie in the washing machine with the sweat suit. arnelle testified that she was not home and did not use the washing machine. to ignore and/or deny the obvious serves no purpose.

There was nothing about any missing sweats. ladies underware or washing machine that proves that oj was at Bundy on 6/12 and commited murder.The prosecution was trying to create stories to the jury to cover tha fact that they had no evidence to prove oj was at Bundy. Talking about oj wearing ladies underwear may get a laugh from some but it is not proof of anything but posters having a desire to be funny.Or trying to be something else.imo

As GIGI said that stuff in the washing machine could have been washed at any time before 6/12 or 6/13.A laundry basket found in the washroom is not proof that oj was at Bundy on 6/12.

[William Anthony]

exactly! why lie about the washer? why not produce the clothes when LE came back for them? why would LE and Kato lie about which door they went through? makes no sense. two people benefited from lying: arnelle and orenthal. ;)

The video shows the knobs and shows the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle was not lying. We know from the evidence that LE liked holding on to things that they thought belonged to Simpson or his family. Why not lie to cover up for what they had stolen/held on to, as with the vial of Simpson's blood, the sneakers and the plastic heart.

[tv]

exactly! why lie about the washer? why not produce the clothes when LE came back for them? why would LE and Kato lie about which door they went through? makes no sense. two people benefited from lying: arnelle and orenthal. ;)


If the sweats were so innocent then why were they never seen again? Why lie about the clothes at all?

Another possible Arnelle lie: Simpson told someone on the plane back to LA that Nicole had been killed in her yard along with another person. He says he got that information from Arnelle but Lange said he only told Arnelle that Nicole had been killed. IIRC, Arnelle backed her father up. No surprise there.

[weezer]

I agree. The testimony speaks for itself. Gigi had no reason to lie, the detectives and Kato had no reason to lie. Only Arnelle had a reason to lie about the door and about the laundry.

I think the fact that the laundry basket was identified as belonging to arnelle and the wash wasn't there on friday and access to the house was restricted by the alarm, the answer is pretty obvious.

[William Anthony]

Could it be that the Beautiful Ms. Arnellle got it right as the video of the doorknobs evidenced and LE got it wrong again, making another human error and/or mistake, as to what the detective told her?

[martin II]

exactly! why lie about the washer? why not produce the clothes when LE came back for them? why would LE and Kato lie about which door they went through? makes no sense. two people benefited from lying: arnelle and orenthal. ;)

I will try to answer your question.

Le lied about entering some door with no outside locks because they were making a failed attempt to attatch some unknown sweats to ojs house or to him because they had no murder clothes.

Le searched ojs house twice.It was claimed that they had some sweats in their hands but for some unknown reason they'FORGOT' to take them so the story was made up that they came back to get them and they were not there when there was no proof that they left these unknown sweats at ojs house.So the only story thay could make up was oj did something with the sweats after they left.

Again KATO never testified which door he entered through.

[weezer]

If the sweats were so innocent then why were they never seen again? Why lie about the clothes at all?

Another possible Arnelle lie: Simpson told someone on the plane back to LA that Nicole had been killed in her yard along with another person. He says he got that information from Arnelle but Lange said he only told Arnelle that Nicole had been killed. IIRC, Arnelle backed her father up. No surprise there.

LOL -- everyone is lying but the two people who benefited from the lies -- riiiiiight. ;)

[William Anthony]

LOL -- everyone is lying but the two people who benefited from the lies -- riiiiiight. ;)

The point is that those who tried to benefit from the lies were trapped by the video of the doorknobs and the fact that the Beautiful Ms. Arnellle had keys in her hands.

[tv]

LOL -- everyone is lying but the two people who benefited from the lies -- riiiiiight. ;)

Of course, weezer -- they were the only ones with motive to lie. IMO, Arnelle is one of three people he could count on above all others and Arnelle was the logical choice to wash the sweats because she was on the premises. She simply forget to reset the alarm on the front door and instead went out the back door leaving it unlocked.

[martin II]

If the sweats were so innocent then why were they never seen again? Why lie about the clothes at all?

Another possible Arnelle lie: Simpson told someone on the plane back to LA that Nicole had been killed in her yard along with another person. He says he got that information from Arnelle but Lange said he only told Arnelle that Nicole had been killed. IIRC, Arnelle backed her father up. No surprise there.

Oj made several calls to people before he left chicago and after he had talked to lang on the phone in a attempt to get more information on what had happened.The media was at Bundy immediately and the location of the murders was well known by anyone that watched tv.

No evidence in the washer that any clothes with blood was ever in the machine. I am not sure but i believe fung examined some clothes and did not see any blood.There was no evidence of any sweats were left at Rockingham
after le left.Le had a chance to collect the sweats on their second search warrant if they were ever there. If anyone lied about some sweats it was le as if they were looking for murder clothes and they found some sweats why not keep them? They looked at all of ojs clothes in his clothes closet.

[GreenIce]

I will try to answer your question.

Le lied about entering some door with no outside locks because they were making a failed attempt to attatch some unknown sweats to ojs house or to him because they had no murder clothes.

Le searched ojs house twice.It was claimed that they had some sweats in their hands but for some unknown reason they'FORGOT' to take them so the story was made up that they came back to get them and they were not there when there was no proof that they left these unknown sweats at ojs house.So the only story thay could make up was oj did something with the sweats after they left.

Again KATO never testified which door he entered through.

Martin,

In the criminal trial, the DA's never ever highlighted that Arnelle's testitmony was different then the detectives on which door was entered. It was not to her benefit to do so. The clothes that Simpson was wearing that night did not play into it. They had the glove and it was match to the one at Bundy and they had the socks. I don't think the killer's clothing was even an issue because it appears to me that the DA's believed that Simpson either got rid of them before he got to Rockingham or he took them with him. So "Door Gate" has nothing to do with the clothes.

The only reason why Door Gate happened is because they wanted to try to prove the jury that MF was always within someone's view and if he did anything, like pick up or plant the glove, he would have been seen. IMO, it was like they were saying, "how stupid would a cop be to pick up evidence and move it in front of a witness?"

The people who insist the sweat were there, need to read the second search warrant. VA and MC clearly spell this out. VA and Lange's book does not make a big deal out of the sweats. I don't think they ever say that the sweats were the murder clothes and that Dennis Fung screwed this up.

The reason why I think this is imporant is how come Clark is bashing Fung for leaving them in the hamper and MF is bashing the cops for them being left in the washing machine?

[martin II]

Of course, weezer -- they were the only ones with motive to lie. IMO, Arnelle is one of three people he could count on above all others and Arnelle was the logical choice to wash the sweats because she was on the premises. She simply forget to reset the alarm on the front door and instead went out the back door leaving it unlocked.

Where is the proof that Arnell forgot to set an alarm.When she opened the front door she took the alarm off.If she left by a back door how did the cops get in through that door. There was no outside lock on any back door and le knew this.Why did Furhman say the door he entered was open and vanhatter said Arnell let them in a back door that had no outside locks.Remember Kato did not say which door he entered. So i think the whole issue about which door was entered was a failed attempt to present false info about the washing machine.

[martin II]

Martin,

In the criminal trial, the DA's never ever highlighted that Arnelle's testitmony was different then the detectives on which door was entered. It was not to her benefit to do so. The clothes that Simpson was wearing that night did not play into it. They had the glove and it was match to the one at Bundy and they had the socks. I don't think the killer's clothing was even an issue because it appears to me that the DA's believed that Simpson either got rid of them before he got to Rockingham or he took them with him. So "Door Gate" has nothing to do with the clothes.

The only reason why Door Gate happened is because they wanted to try to prove the jury that MF was always within someone's view and if he did anything, like pick up or plant the glove, he would have been seen. IMO, it was like they were saying, "how stupid would a cop be to pick up evidence and move it in front of a witness?"

The people who insist the sweat were there, need to read the second search warrant. VA and MC clearly spell this out. VA and Lange's book does not make a big deal out of the sweats. I don't think they ever say that the sweats were the murder clothes and that Dennis Fung screwed this up.

The reason why I think this is imporant is how come Clark is bashing Fung for leaving them in the hamper and MF is bashing the cops for them being left in the washing machine?

I agree

That may be the reason there were conflicting stories about the sweats.

I do remember Clarke saying the clothes were in a hamper either in the bathroom or the washing room and someone just tossed them to a corner.

So why the differance.was the clothes in a hamper or the washing machine.

Those posting about the clothes/washing machine should know the answer.
But what is clear clarks comment about the clothes being in a hamper has been ignored by some that know they were in the washing machine.

[martin II]

It may be that the whole story about the sweats is just another failed story by outsiders looking for nonexistant evidence. It did not seem to be a big deal with the prosecution or vanhatter and Lang. It seems to be another effort to bash the beautiful MS Arnell Simpson.

[weezer]

Of course, weezer -- they were the only ones with motive to lie. IMO, Arnelle is one of three people he could count on above all others and Arnelle was the logical choice to wash the sweats because she was on the premises. She simply forget to reset the alarm on the front door and instead went out the back door leaving it unlocked.

are you thinking ac is the possible third? I've wondered about that except I can't figure out why or how he would get arnelle's laundry basket and laundry to take to the main house. my belief is all roads lead to arnelle.

[martin II]

The point is that those who tried to benefit from the lies were trapped by the video of the doorknobs and the fact that the Beautiful Ms. Arnellle had keys in her hands.

The jury and everyone in the court room looked at the video when the door knobs were zoomed in on the elmo and knew the cops had lied about entering the back door. Some posters have just ignored this also.

[tv]

are you thinking ac is the possible third? I've wondered about that except I can't figure out why or how he would get arnelle's laundry basket and laundry to take to the main house. my belief is all roads lead to arnelle.

I think AC is one of the three but I don't think he had anything to do with the crime until after the fact. I do think he knows what happened but has never said anything out of loyalty. (unless you count what he said to Jennifer Peace) In light of the laundry basket she refused to claim and the door she lied about entering I agree that it all points to Arnelle.

[William Anthony]

Of course, weezer -- they were the only ones with motive to lie. IMO, Arnelle is one of three people he could count on above all others and Arnelle was the logical choice to wash the sweats because she was on the premises. She simply forget to reset the alarm on the front door and instead went out the back door leaving it unlocked.

Where is the record of the phone call asking her to become an accessory after the fact?

[martin II]

are you thinking ac is the possible third? I've wondered about that except I can't figure out why or how he would get arnelle's laundry basket and laundry to take to the main house. my belief is all roads lead to arnelle.

Darden investigated AC's whereabouts and finally came to the conclusion that his time was accounted for.He was forced to drop his investigation. So AC was not a third or forth. GIGI gave you the answer when nshe said Arnell could have washed clothes in the machine before 6/12 But all of this does not
clear up comments about sweats in a washing machine as the lead DA person said the sweats were in a hamper not a washing machine.

[William Anthony]

I think AC is one of the three but I don't think he had anything to do with the crime until after the fact. I do think he knows what happened but has never said anything out of loyalty. (unless you count what he said to Jennifer Peace) In light of the laundry basket she refused to claim and the door she lied about entering I agree that it all points to Arnelle.

Please, point to the criminal trial or the socio political production testimony where the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle "refused to claim" the laundry basket?

[weezer]

I think AC is one of the three but I don't think he had anything to do with the crime until after the fact. I do think he knows what happened but has never said anything out of loyalty. (unless you count what he said to Jennifer Peace) In light of the laundry basket she refused to claim and the door she lied about entering I agree that it all points to Arnelle.

I remember reading that ac was a very, very busy man after the murders. I mean besides driving orenthal around -- he was trying to talk to Nicole's friends to see if they knew anything. I've never bought the story about him asking who Nicole had been around -- I think he was sent on a mission to see if Nicole had shared anything from those last days with anyone. maybe whether or not she told anyone orenthal was threatening to kill her? or that she believed he would kill her?

[tv]

According to one of Nicole's friends, Robin Greer, AC went on a 'witness roundup' asking question about Nicole's life. She flat out told him that she thought OJ Simpson was the only one who could have done it. I think AC was trying to find out anything that might help Simpson's case in addition to finding out who knew what about the abuse and stalking.

[William Anthony]

I think Simpson had enough lawyers around him to let him and AC know that what others claim Ms. NBS told them would likely be excluded as hearsay.

[weezer]

According to one of Nicole's friends, Robin Greer, AC went on a 'witness roundup' asking question about Nicole's life. She flat out told him that she thought OJ Simpson was the only one who could have done it. I think AC was trying to find out anything that might help Simpson's case in addition to finding out who knew what about the abuse and stalking.

I agree. I think it's very telling when his best friend and son both testify that they thought orenthal could have done it.

[weezer]

According to one of Nicole's friends, Robin Greer, AC went on a 'witness roundup' asking question about Nicole's life. She flat out told him that she thought OJ Simpson was the only one who could have done it. I think AC was trying to find out anything that might help Simpson's case in addition to finding out who knew what about the abuse and stalking.

and cora fishman testified that at the end of her life the only person Nicole was afraid would harm her was orenthal.

[tv]

I agree. I think it's very telling when his best friend and son both testify that they thought orenthal could have done it.

Very telling, indeed. :)

[weezer]

Very telling, indeed. :)

and then there was kris kardashian slamming her ex-husband for being part of the defense team. I think it's obvious that Nicole's friends knew who was capable and who did murder her.

[William Anthony]

and then there was kris kardashian slamming her ex-husband for being part of the defense team. I think it's obvious that Nicole's friends knew who was capable and who did murder her.

Hell hath no fury like...

[tv]

and then there was kris kardashian slamming her ex-husband for being part of the defense team. I think it's obvious that Nicole's friends knew who was capable and who did murder her.

Here's a statement that Kris Kardashian Jenner made outside of court --

Among those who came to court in support of the victims' families was Kris Jenner, a longtime friend of Nicole Brown Simpson.

"I think that anything like this, it was so brutal that of course, you're shocked," she told reporters outside the court. " You're always surprised, as much as she said, he's going to kill me, you never really expect it's going to happen. " Asked to clarify her statement, Jenner said Nicole Brown Simpson told her before her death, "He's going to kill me and he's going to get away with it."

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9-27/8pm/

[William Anthony]

Here's a statement that Kris Kardashian Jenner made outside of court --

Among those who came to court in support of the victims' families was Kris Jenner, a longtime friend of Nicole Brown Simpson.

"I think that anything like this, it was so brutal that of course, you're shocked," she told reporters outside the court. " You're always surprised, as much as she said, he's going to kill me, you never really expect it's going to happen. " Asked to clarify her statement, Jenner said Nicole Brown Simpson told her before her death, "He's going to kill me and he's going to get away with it."

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9-27/8pm/

Hearsay.

[martin II]

Well since wild guesses are being made maby oj had given kato the sweats some time previously and kato went from his room through the back office room to the washing machine room and washed what had become his sweats.

[martin II]

Here's a statement that Kris Kardashian Jenner made outside of court --

Among those who came to court in support of the victims' families was Kris Jenner, a longtime friend of Nicole Brown Simpson.

"I think that anything like this, it was so brutal that of course, you're shocked," she told reporters outside the court. " You're always surprised, as much as she said, he's going to kill me, you never really expect it's going to happen. " Asked to clarify her statement, Jenner said Nicole Brown Simpson told her before her death, "He's going to kill me and he's going to get away with it."

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9-27/8pm/

Was this before or after she sold her made up story to the tabloids. Or was it when she told Cora not to sell her story so kris could sell hers.What did Kris do when nicole was supossed to have told her this tale? What nicole may have thought is not proof that her idea came to be true.

[martin II]

Hearsay.

Made up tale by someone that was trying to sell her story.But it is she said someone told her something that another person said nicole said.Nicole also said her friends would turn against her.

[martin II]

and cora fishman testified that at the end of her life the only person Nicole was afraid would harm her was orenthal.

I think you know that is not true.

[martin II]

and then there was kris kardashian slamming her ex-husband for being part of the defense team. I think it's obvious that Nicole's friends knew who was capable and who did murder her.

kk was married to RK when he had B W follow nicole as a set up to kill Nicole.
Did she speak out then?

[martin II]

Kris Jenner was not even called to testify for the prosecution proving she was selling a story that the prosecution did not believe. Ditto R Greer.Just two ladies talking to get some mag to pay for her comments. She was not even considered valuable to the prosecutions failed attemp to talk about abuse.

[William Anthony]

I feel compelled to explain that after a murderer, rapist, elder abuser and child molester, a lair is the worse thing that a person can be, IMHO. My cousin and I discussed how our parents hated a liar and did not allow us as children to use that word. We were taught that a man is only as good as his word and, if you give it, try to keep it. If you are unable to so do, then explain to those to whom your word was given and seek their apology. I realize that we were not all raised the same or in the same era, so I must accept the fact that others do not have that same aversion to the word and its use as I do. Thanks for understanding.

[William Anthony]

Has anyone seen any evidence of a phone record made by Simpson to anyone that would indicate that he told/requested the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle or anyone to clean up? If such records exists, I would appreciate seeing a link to it. Thanks.

[martin II]

If the sweats were so innocent then why were they never seen again? Why lie about the clothes at all?

Another possible Arnelle lie: Simpson told someone on the plane back to LA that Nicole had been killed in her yard along with another person. He says he got that information from Arnelle but Lange said he only told Arnelle that Nicole had been killed. IIRC, Arnelle backed her father up. No surprise there.

Thats not difficult.Since le was the last group that admitted to having the sweats in hand i suggest someone in le left ojs house with the sweats in hand. Or a bag.People loved ojs stuff.

[martin II]

Has anyone seen any evidence of a phone record made by Simpson to anyone that would indicate that he told/requested the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle or anyone to clean up? If such records exists, I would appreciate seeing a link to it. Thanks.

Maby the poster making the clain must have seen it. UNLESS

[William Anthony]

Maby the poster making the clain must have seen it. UNLESS

Martin,

I would love to see something that would support that a person was a criminal before making that opinion and the person lied to cover up their involvement in the most serious of crimes, IMHO, murder.

[martin II]

"MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?

MS. GUARIN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes."

There is nothing about a sweatsuit and Petrocelli got it right that the maid identified the basket but her answer as to whom the clothes belonged should have been stricken as it call for speculation.

GIGI also said the panties were in rhe basket, not in the washer as many have claimed. So the panties were never in the washing machine.

[martin II]

Martin,

I would love to see something that would support that a person was a criminal before making that opinion and the person lied to cover up their involvement in the most serious of crimes, IMHO, murder.

Many have posted that ladies underwear were in the washing machine. GIGIS testimony was that they were in the basket not the machine.So those claims were false and untrue.

[William Anthony]

Many have posted that ladies underwear were in the washing machine. GIGIS testimony was that they were in the basket not the machine.So those claims were false and untrue.

Martin,

I read it that the underwear was/were in the washing machine.

[GreenIce]

Has anyone seen any evidence of a phone record made by Simpson to anyone that would indicate that he told/requested the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle or anyone to clean up? If such records exists, I would appreciate seeing a link to it. Thanks.

William,

There are no telephone calls. Simpson's own investigators tried to find any records that would indicate that Simpson would have called Rockingham, if only to find out how far the police were behind him.

It is also my interestanding the the DA's also looked for this evidence and that all public phone records were reviewed.

However, I don't know if Arnelle's phone records were reviewed. Or even if they asked if she had a cell phone.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

And Ron Phillips describes using a completely different door. Sorry, read his testimony, it is all there.

I was able to enlarge the photo. It does not label any of the doors where they entered.

What is clear is that the detectives all choose a door where they could see MF at all times.

It is also read Phillips testimony, he has 5 detectives at the scene and 4 of them were talking to Arnelle. Maybe Brad Roberts?:)

Phillips clearly testified that they went into the smaller rear door (not the French doors) Arnelle opened the door and Arnelle, Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter entered the house. There are two diagrams, the bottom diagram is in color and there are red arrows on it that indicate where all the doors are.

Post the testimony where you think Phillips says there were five detectives at Rockingham early that morning. Include the date please.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Martin,

I read it that the underwear was/were in the washing machine.

william


you are correct

[martin II]

Phillips clearly testified that they went into the smaller rear door (not the French doors) Arnelle opened the door and Arnelle, Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter entered the house. There are two diagrams, the bottom diagram is in color and there are red arrows on it that indicate where all the doors are.

Post the testimony where you think Phillips says there were five detectives at Rockingham early that morning. Include the date please.

bobaugust

Kato did not testify to which door he went in.
There was no outside locks on the lower (S) three doors.Just a door knob.

[William Anthony]

William,

There are no telephone calls. Simpson's own investigators tried to find any records that would indicate that Simpson would have called Rockingham, if only to find out how far the police were behind him.

It is also my interestanding the the DA's also looked for this evidence and that all public phone records were reviewed.

However, I don't know if Arnelle's phone records were reviewed. Or even if they asked if she had a cell phone.

To me, if there were no phone records indicating a call between Simpson and the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle or Simpson and Ms. Randa and/or Ms. Randa and the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle, then there is no evidence to promulgate, in any form, the notion that the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle was engaged in any criminal activity for which she had to tell a lie, IMHO.

[martin II]

No entrance by the back doors into the house.


Two doors on the back of ojs house were nailed shut
The other three doors have no outside locks so it was impossible to enter the house by those doors.The locks for those three were on the inside of the house.

Kato testified that Arnell had her keys in her hands as she led all to the door they entered by.THE FRONT DOOR.


MS. CLARK: Okay. And so that one key would open the front and the rear doors?

MS. SIMPSON: The front door. There aren't any locks on the rear doors. Well, on some of them there are actually.

MS. CLARK: And is it the same key for those locks?

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, to be honest with you, I don't know. I don't believe so.

MS. CLARK: You don't think so?

MS. SIMPSON: No. I didn't have the key. The locks are very high up on the doors in the rear.

MS. CLARK: Hmm. Let me--

MS. CLARK: Can I have a moment?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: So you're talking about the French doors at the rear of the house where it's very high up?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Is there another door that leads into the billiard room that is just a regular door?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MS. CLARK: That you can go in through. Okay. And you had the key to that door?

MS. SIMPSON: There is no--it's only locked from the inside of the house. There's no lock from the outside.

MS. CLARK: You can't open it from the outside?

MS. SIMPSON: No, you can not.

MS. CLARK: Is there another door that leads into the billiard room or actually--you know, there's an area you walk into and the billiard room is to your left?

MS. SIMPSON: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: Okay. That door. Can you open that one from the outside?

MS. SIMPSON: It's in the billiard room you're speaking of?

MS. CLARK: I don't think it's in the billiard room. It's--the billiard room as you walk in would be to your left.

MS. SIMPSON: So towards the TV's?

MS. CLARK: Toward the TV room, correct.

MS. SIMPSON: There's a little--those doors are nailed shut.

MS. CLARK: Okay. What means do you gain entry from the rear of the house when you try--if you were trying to go into the rear of the house, what door would you take?

MS. SIMPSON: You can't. You would have to go around to the front.

MS. CLARK: There's no door that admits you in through the rear of the house?

MS. SIMPSON: No, unless--unless you go through the guest house.

.


.

[William Anthony]

william


you are correct

Martin,

I do not know, if I am correct or not as the transcript isn't very clear, imho.

"MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay."

Does "in there" pertain to the basket or the washing machine? Was she saying that the basket belonged to the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle or that the panties were in the basket that belonged to Arnelle?

[martin II]

Martin,

I do not know, if I am correct or not as the transcript isn't very clear, imho.

"MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay."

Does "in there" pertain to the basket or the washing machine? Was she saying that the basket belonged to the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle or that the panties were in the basket that belonged to Arnelle?

'In there' is a problem but i thought basket was the subject.
my other issue is there has been many post that said sweats on top of underwear. It is strange that darden did not talk about sweats to her.

[William Anthony]

'In there' is a problem but i thought basket was the subject.
my other issue is there has been many post that said sweats on top of underwear. It is strange that darden did not talk about sweats to her.

He did. Remember the "never ever" question?:)

[GreenIce]

Phillips clearly testified that they went into the smaller rear door (not the French doors) Arnelle opened the door and Arnelle, Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter entered the house. There are two diagrams, the bottom diagram is in color and there are red arrows on it that indicate where all the doors are.

Post the testimony where you think Phillips says there were five detectives at Rockingham early that morning. Include the date please.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Kato described what door they went in, the bar area, I believe. This is how Phillips describes it:

Q: AND WHERE DID YOU WALK?

A: WALKED TO THE REAR OF THE MAIN HOUSE -- NOT TO THE REAR OF THE MAIN HOUSE, BUT THE BACK PORTION OF THE MAIN HOUSE WHERE THERE WAS SOME FRENCH DOORS AND ANOTHER SMALLER DOOR RIGHT NEXT TO IT.

Q: WHEN YOU WALKED TOWARD THE MAIN HOUSE, DID YOU PASS BY MR. KAELIN'S ROOM?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU LOOK INSIDE?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: WALKED UP TO ONE -- ONE DOOR THAT LED INTO THE HOUSE AND ARNELLE SIMPSON UNLOCKED THE DOOR FOR US AND OPENED THE DOOR.

Q: AND DID YOU ALL WALK INSIDE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS WHO AT THAT POINT?

A: THAT WAS ARNELLE SIMPSON, MYSELF, TOM LANGE AND PHIL VANNATTER.

Q: WENT IN THROUGH THE REAR?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: WE WALKED IN THROUGH THE LIVING ROOM AREA AND THEN INTO A KITCHEN AREA AND FROM THE KITCHEN AREA WE WALKED AROUND TO A MAID'S QUARTERS THAT WAS OFF THE KITCHEN.


Bottom line, Phillips isn't tell the truth. Unless you now what to say that Kato is involved with Arnelle who is involved with Cathy Randa who is involved with AC Cowlings who is involved with OJ Simpson to cover up for the murders of Ron and Nicole.

[GreenIce]

More from Ron Phillips:

Q: WHY WERE YOU LOOKING FOR GIGI?

A: WE HAD BEEN TOLD BY THE WESTEC PEOPLE THAT SHE WAS A FULL -- LIVE-IN MAID, FULL-TIME, AND ARNELLE HAD ALSO BROUGHT HER NAME UP, SO WE THOUGHT IF WE COULD FIND HER, SHE MAY KNOW WHERE MR. SIMPSON WAS AT IN THE HOUSE.

Q: AND YOU WENT INTO HER ROOM THEN?

A: WE JUST WENT INTO THE ROOM BRIEFLY, YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SEE IN THE ROOM?

A: THERE WAS NOBODY INSIDE THE ROOM AND THE BED WAS COMPLETELY MADE AND THE ROOM WAS WELL ORGANIZED AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT ANYBODY HAD BEEN IN THERE RECENTLY.



The point here is that waited until they were on the way before they enterd
the house--wasn't the maid the real focus of their entry?

Also, they were told a maid worked at the house full time, doesn't that mean 40 hours?

Also, MF said he did a plate search on the Bronco and on Kato's car. Why didn't he do one on the Saab and the Bently?

Unless maids are forbidden to have cars in CA or they all drive Bentley's or Saabs.

[GreenIce]

More from Ron Phillips:

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: I JUST WENT OVER TO A DOORWAY THAT LED OUT TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE. IT WAS KIND OF A -- I DON'T KNOW -- PATIO TYPE -- WELL, IT IS OFF THE KITCHEN, LEADS OUT TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, TOWARD THE ROCKINGHAM GATE.

Q: AND WHAT WERE YOU DOING OUT THERE?

A: JUST STANDING THERE. TOM LANGE WAS BASICALLY TALKING TO ARNELLE AND THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT FOR ME TO DO, NOTHING FOR ME TO DO AT THAT TIME.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I WAS APPROACHED BY MARK FUHRMAN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHO WALKED UP TO ME AND SAID --



The point is that Ron Phillips went to the door at the front of the house and MF approaches him.

So not only does MF leave through the front door to go find the glove but he also uses the front of the house to tell Phillips of his big find.

Ron Phillips testimony is really nothing more then a bunch of double talk. He makes it clear that whatever Arnelle said was wasn't listened to by him.

IMO.